RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

b) to (g) of section 270A(2) of the Act. He submitted that the only possible clause is section 270A(2)(a) which applies where the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act. He submitted that in the instant case the intimation

SILVER OAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT-6, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Silver Oak Buildcon Private Limited ACIT, Circle – 6, Pune 4, Rachana Park Atreya Co-op. Hsg Society, Opp. Sadhana Institute of Vs. Mgmt., Vetalbaba Chowk, Gokhale Road, Pune – 411016 PAN: AAOCS9800M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Miss Aarti Thakkar Department by : Shri

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

B or section 80-IC or section 80-ID or section 80-IE; (ii) the 1st day of April, 2018, any deduction is admissible under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

B or section 80-IC or section 80-ID or section 80-IE; (ii) the 1st day of April, 2018, any deduction is admissible under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income

RAJU BHAUSAHEB ANAP,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.467/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Raju Bhausaheb Anap, The Income Tax Officer, 01 Rajshree Samartha Sankul, V Nashik. Near Kalawati Mata Mandi, S Kalanagar, Indira Nagar, Nashik – 422009. Pan: Anrpa 7092 E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 20.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 11.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Raju Bhausaheb Anap [A]

2 Raju Bhausaheb Anap [A] 2.1 A survey action under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of Kishore Patial who e-filed ITR’s of various persons wherein bogus deduction under Chapter VIA was claimed and the assessee was one among such cases. Kishor Patil, who files IT returns of the salaried employees of various

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

b) of the Act, the Assessing Officer alleges that JM Financial had manipulated accounting methodology so as to artificially inflate the distributable surplus and the investors, in order to reduce their tax liability, entered into these sham transactions and received dividend and short term capital loss. These are allegations against JM Financial and do not implicate petitioner in any manner

DR. PRATAP PANDHIRANATH PATIL,PUNE vs. PCIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

270A of the Act for underreporting of income is hereby initiated separately.” 18. From going through the above details, we notice that the only issue referred in the show cause notice by ld. PCIT is that ld. AO ought to have made the addition of Rs.42,83,244/- by invoking section 68

VEDANT PROPERTIES,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 3(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.2216/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Vedant Properties, The Income Tax Officer, Office No.101, Abhijeet Ward-3(1), 2nd Floor, Court, Bhandarkar Road, PMT Bldg., Shankar Seth PUNE – 411 004. vs. Road, PUNE – 411 037. Maharashtra. PAN AANFV9097K Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE vs. DIPTI NARENDRA LULLA, PUNE

B Phadke\nShri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR\n29-10-2025\n05-12-2025\nORDER\nPER R.K. PANDA, VP:\nThis appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated\n12.02.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2018-19.\n2.\nFacts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

68,72,632 to the taxable income of the Appellant including an adjustment of INR 2,10,10,000/- on account of transfer pricing matters and INR 58,62,632/- on account of corporate tax matters. 4 2. The Ld AO has erred in not providing a copy of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Board) approval for transferring

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68,200, Employers Contribution to Provident Fund of INR 43,55,286, Employers Contribution to ESIC of INR 1,35,555 and Bonus of INR 5,07,95,670 made under the intimation order under section 143(1), without assigning any reason whatsoever, 9. The learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68,200, Employers Contribution to Provident Fund of INR 43,55,286, Employers Contribution to ESIC of INR 1,35,555 and Bonus of INR 5,07,95,670 made under the intimation order under section 143(1), without assigning any reason whatsoever, 9. The learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2428 & 2434/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Department. Maryadit, Arvi Junnar- 412401. Pan : Aagas3985H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2434/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2428 & 2434/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Department. Maryadit, Arvi Junnar- 412401. PAN : AAGAS3985H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2428 & 2434/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Department. Maryadit, Arvi Junnar- 412401. Pan : Aagas3985H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2434/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2428 & 2434/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Department. Maryadit, Arvi Junnar- 412401. PAN : AAGAS3985H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing

SANCHIT KANTILAL GANORE,BHAGUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, V The Income Tax Officer, 21, Main Road, Bhagur, S. Ward-1(1), Nashik. Nashik - 422502. Pan: Aprpg4907J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & Without Prejudice To Other Grounds, Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Passing A

2 ITA No.1767/PUN/2025 [A] pre-condition and therefore, the impugned reassessment proceedings and the consequential reassessment order may please be quashed 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the illegal order passed by the Ld. NaFAC since the Notice u/s 148 dated 29-07-2022 issued

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE vs. BHIKSHU GRANIMART, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

270A are hereby initiated for underreporting of income.” 4. Similarly, from the audit report filed by the assessee in form 3CB the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has taken several unsecured loans during the year. He issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the various parties from whom the assessee had shown to have taken unsecured loans

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(3), PUNE vs. M B ASHTEKAR, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

68, the correct applicable penalty proceedings would have been u/s 271AAC and not 270A. However, since the addition so made has already been deleted, the ground of appeal no.4, is hereby treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Ground of appeal no 5: Through this ground the appellant urged for addition/alteration of any ground during the hearing. No such option

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

b) The assessee comprises 97.8% of the total sales made by the M/s Sharp king Trading Pvt Ltd, yet no transportation bills were furnished with respect to it. Even though M/s Sharp king Trading Pvt Ltd accepted under oath that it had delivery challan, lorry receipts, acknowledged delivery notes custom clearing registers, yet nothing was furnished

RAIGAON SUGAR AND POWER LIMITED,KARAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, CIR-SATARA, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of assessment order dated 29.04.2021 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and penalty order dated 07.01.2022 passed u/s. 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2 ITA.No.3176 & 3177/PUN./2025 (Raigaon Sugar and Power Ltd.) 2. Registry has informed that