SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA B. KADAM, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271D by principally relying on the amendment made in section 194 IA vide the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, wherein in the definition of the term 'consideration for transfer of any immovable property' is defined to include "all charges of the nature of club membership, car parking fee, electricity or water 13 ITA.No.1375/PUN./2024 (Tapadiya Construction Ltd.) facility

DR. SANJIV KESHAV KARANDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1540/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dr. Sanjiv Keshav Karande, H. No.158, Samata Nagar, Deepmala, A/P Daund, Dist. Pune-413801. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Asrpk5180G बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-11(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri M. R. Bhagwat Revenue By : Shri Sanghamitra Khobragaae सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Jt.Cit Levied The Penalty U/S 271D Of The Act. The Cit(A) Confirmed The Same. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That This Is A Case Where The Penalty Order Dated 29.11.2016 Is Time Barred. Referring To The Provisions Of Clause (C) Of Section 275(1) Of The Act, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Penalty Order Passed On 29.11.2016 Is A Time Barred One. Otherwise, On Merits Of Levy Of Penalty, Ld.

271D. It is true the issue could have been considered u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 but inability of the same by the AO cannot absolve the appellant from the provisions of section

DR. VIKAS JAGANNATH POL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11(2) , PUNE

In the result the appellant gets relief of Rs

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.831/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dr. Vikas Jagannath Pol, Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Pune. A/1/4 Rangriha Chs Salunkhe Vihar Road, Kondhwa-411048. Pan : Agipp7216P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kishor B. Phadke : Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.09.20222 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-11, Pune [“Ld. Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts Upholding Addition Of Unsecured Loan Of Rs.52,00,000. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals] Has Erred In Law & Facts By Allowing Rectification Of Order Under Section 143(3) Under Section 154 & Upholding Addition Of Unsecured Loan Of Rs.52,00,000 Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant Craves His Right To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Or All Grounds Of Appeal.”

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant craves his right to add, alter, amend or delete any or all grounds of appeal.” 2 3. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and a dental surgeon. He furnished his return of income on 29.112014 declaring total income at Rs.8

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271D and 271(1)(b)... and so on. An exercise of missing two\nseparate orders under one common order, is besides the law and\nwholly incorrect.\nD. Mis-match of authorities (without prejudice to main challenges)\nFrom a collective perusal of sections 12AA/12AB, etc. it reveals that,\npower to cancel \"registration\" u/s 12A/12AA/12AB exists with the\nsame authority which

VIRENDRA VIJAYSINGH PARDESHI,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 2(1) NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2620/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Virendra Vijaysingh Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Pardeshi, Row House No.10, Swapnpurti Cooperative Housing Society, Kalptaru Nagar, Nashik- 422006. Pan : Anhpp9809L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Pardeshi Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit-Appeals Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2500000 Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Merely For Non-Appearance Relying Solely On Procedural Default & Ignoring That Appellate Proceedings Are Continuation Of Assessment & Must Be Decided On Merits Based On Record & Written Submissions Already Filed.

Sections 269SS/269T (penalty u/s 271D/271E) facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned CIT-Appeals failed to address the significant fact that the Department itself had not made any income addition (u/s 68 or 69A) in A.Y, 2017-18 based on the same seized materials, instead treating the alleged receipt as a cash loan (proposing penalty u/s 271D