DEVRAJ VISHWASRAO JADHAV,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SATARA, SATARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / .Ita No.2213/Pun/2024 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Devraj Vishwasrao Ito, Ward-3, Satara Jadhav, R. No. 06, S. No. 24, Vs. Dreams Rhythm, Opposite Talathi Office, Bavdhan, Pune-411021 Maharashtra Pan-Aebpj6968F अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Dr. Prayag Jha Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 23-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08-09-2025 आदीश/Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.09.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 Of The Act Dated 14.03.2023. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Arguments & Submissions Made By The Assessee & Dismissing All The Grounds Taken In Appeal. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Ld Assessing Officer Had Not Served On The Assessee The Statutory Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The It Act & Therefore, The Impugned Order Was Passed Without Jurisdiction.

section 68 of the IT Act. 6. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amount of Rs.36,35,000/- was received as consideration on sale of agricultural land and was exempt from Income Tax. 7. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not directing the Ld AO to allow set off for Short Term Capital Loss

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

section 19 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 68 of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in making the addition of unsecured loans. E. As regards, the addition made on account of alleged receipt of on-money consideration in cash, as well as, the payment of alleged on-money purchase

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 2(22)(e) limits the amount of deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profits of the lender company (i.e. M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. Since the accumulated profits in audit report of M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. was Rs.49,59,14,779/- accordingly deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company M/s M. B. Patil Construction

M/S. M.B.PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 2(22)(e) limits the amount of deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profits of the lender company (i.e. M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. Since the accumulated profits in audit report of M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. was Rs.49,59,14,779/- accordingly deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company M/s M. B. Patil Construction

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), PUNE vs. SURESH KUMAR LAKHOTIA , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Vs Suresh Kumar Lakhotia, The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), 3A/3B, Archies Court Pune. Shankersheth Road, Ghorpade Peth, Pune – 411042. Pune – 411042. Pan: Aazpl4337L Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Devdatta Mainkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting The Assessee'S Contention That The Additional Capital Introduced In Ay 2018- 19 Represents Accumulated Suresh Kumar Lakhotia [R]

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 09.11.2023 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee's contention that the additional capital introduced

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

68,10,000 credit u/s.68 Unexplained 3,50,000 -- -- 1,58,06,000 4,00,000 expenditure u/s.69C Unexplained -- -- -- -- 38,41,000 money u/s.69A Unexplained -- -- -- -- 2,20,000 investment in jewellery Unexplained 2,30,970 -- -- -- -- investment in Fixed Deposit u/s.69 Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

68,10,000 credit u/s.68 Unexplained 3,50,000 -- -- 1,58,06,000 4,00,000 expenditure u/s.69C Unexplained -- -- -- -- 38,41,000 money u/s.69A Unexplained -- -- -- -- 2,20,000 investment in jewellery Unexplained 2,30,970 -- -- -- -- investment in Fixed Deposit u/s.69 Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

68,10,000 credit u/s.68 Unexplained 3,50,000 -- -- 1,58,06,000 4,00,000 expenditure u/s.69C Unexplained -- -- -- -- 38,41,000 money u/s.69A Unexplained -- -- -- -- 2,20,000 investment in jewellery Unexplained 2,30,970 -- -- -- -- investment in Fixed Deposit u/s.69 Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

68,10,000 credit u/s.68 Unexplained 3,50,000 -- -- 1,58,06,000 4,00,000 expenditure u/s.69C Unexplained -- -- -- -- 38,41,000 money u/s.69A Unexplained -- -- -- -- 2,20,000 investment in jewellery Unexplained 2,30,970 -- -- -- -- investment in Fixed Deposit u/s.69 Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

68,10,000 credit u/s.68 Unexplained 3,50,000 -- -- 1,58,06,000 4,00,000 expenditure u/s.69C Unexplained -- -- -- -- 38,41,000 money u/s.69A Unexplained -- -- -- -- 2,20,000 investment in jewellery Unexplained 2,30,970 -- -- -- -- investment in Fixed Deposit u/s.69 Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

68,10,000 credit u/s.68 Unexplained 3,50,000 -- -- 1,58,06,000 4,00,000 expenditure u/s.69C Unexplained -- -- -- -- 38,41,000 money u/s.69A Unexplained -- -- -- -- 2,20,000 investment in jewellery Unexplained 2,30,970 -- -- -- -- investment in Fixed Deposit u/s.69 Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

68,10,000 credit u/s.68 Unexplained 3,50,000 -- -- 1,58,06,000 4,00,000 expenditure u/s.69C Unexplained -- -- -- -- 38,41,000 money u/s.69A Unexplained -- -- -- -- 2,20,000 investment in jewellery Unexplained 2,30,970 -- -- -- -- investment in Fixed Deposit u/s.69 Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

68,10,000 credit u/s.68 Unexplained 3,50,000 -- -- 1,58,06,000 4,00,000 expenditure u/s.69C Unexplained -- -- -- -- 38,41,000 money u/s.69A Unexplained -- -- -- -- 2,20,000 investment in jewellery Unexplained 2,30,970 -- -- -- -- investment in Fixed Deposit u/s.69 Unexplained -- -- 1,06,42,500 -- -- investment in land Excess claim

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

293 (Guj), which had also taken note of the decision in Indu Lata Rangwala Vs. DCIT (supra) and held otherwise. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue had relied on the decision in Amin’s Pathology Laboratory Vs. P.N. Prasad, JCIT (supra) which is case of assessment under section

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

293 (Guj), which had also taken note of the decision in Indu Lata Rangwala Vs. DCIT (supra) and held otherwise. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue had relied on the decision in Amin’s Pathology Laboratory Vs. P.N. Prasad, JCIT (supra) which is case of assessment under section

M/S. GREAT FORTUNE INVESTMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2325/Pun/2017 निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Great Fortune Investments & The Assistant Commissioner Of Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Shop No.6, Rushiraj Heights, Near Cirlce-1, Nashik. Nmc Water Tank, Parijat Nagar, Mahatma Nagar, Nahik. Pan: Aaccg 6406 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/04/2022

293/-. The impugned properties whose deemed rent has been calculated by the AO are as under: Flat in Siddhivinayak Park ,Nasik - Given on Rent to employee Showroom in Rishiraj Regency ,Gangapur Road, Nasik.- Vacant Property However, the Assessing Officer(AO) , in the assessment order in para 5.5 has observed that the flat in Siddhivinayak Park was rented out by assessee

SHRIRANG GOVIND PHADTARE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 10(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.17/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shrirang Govind Phadtare, Vs Ito, Ward 10(1), 01 Alephata, Junnar, Pune- Pune 412411 Maharashtra Pan-Aarpp6204E Appellant Respondent

sections of the ITA, 1961. 3. The learned I-T authorities erred in law and on facts in not providing requisite documentary evidence and cross examination to appellant. Appellant contends that the order passed by the learned AO is bad in law, as it violates the principal of natural justice. 4. The learned I-T authorities erred on facts

HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO.PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 562/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Lohia Jain House, Bhandarkar Road, Pune-411 004 Pan : Aaach4226Q .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

68,495/- on account of letting out of house properties of Business centre and Kothrud properties. The same was revised to Rs.75,28,744/- before finalization of the assessment by filing revised computation. 3.2. On perusal of the same, it was evident that the revised computation, gross total income before Chapter-VI deduction was Rs.4,44,39,344/- as against