DHAVAL VINOD GADA,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Dhaval Vinod Gada Dcit, Circle – 5, Pune 101, New Timber Market, Vs. Bhawani Peth, Pune – 411042 Pan: Anjpg4733A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The land was purchased from Smt. Nenshi L. Shah, Shri Lalji K. Shah, Shri Shantilal Shah, who are the vendors and are residing in Mumbai. The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to Shri Manilal M. Gada on 02.03.2016 to submit copy of bank account and other details from

M/S. MUNOTH TRANSPORT CO.,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.990/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Munoth Transport Co., Darshan Apartment, V.K. High School Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Panvel, Raigad – 410206 …. Pan: Aacfm1055D Vs.

68 of the Act were not attracted. He admitted that no document for transaction of advancing loan was available. 5 M/s. Munoth Transport Co. 9. In respect of second loan of ₹ 2 lakhs, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that confirmation of parties was filed and the said person was being assessed in Panvel, he further pointed

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

68,901/- 3. 26.03.2019 Rs.1,71,440/- 4. 20.02.2020 Rs.31,76,561/- 4 8. It was accordingly requested to delete the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “5. Findings: The Grounds

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

68,85,000 to 16 related parties on 359 occasions towards purchase of goods. The Department did not verify the exigencies of payments so made in cash as it was seen that on other occasion payments to these parties were made through banking channel also. Hence the exemption cited under rite 6DD of Income Tax Rules. 1962 was not applicable

TARA CONSTRUCTIONS ,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

9 Tara Constructions 08/01/2018 Loan by 6,00,00,000/- Loan by Nandkishore Withdrawal by Shailaja Devi Rathi (husband) to Nandkishore Rathi Rathi to Tara Shailaja Devi Rathi (partner) from Tara Constructions (wife) of Constructions of Rs.6,00,00,000/- Rs.6,00,00,000/- The detailed summary of fund flow to the above along with the reference to the documents

SRL CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,JALNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.847/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Srl Construction Pvt. Ltd., V The Acit, 197, Khasgaon, Jafrabad, S Central Circle-2, Jalna – 444203. Aurangabad. Pan: Aaqcs7227L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateekjha – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)-Nagpur, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 08.03.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. A) On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & In Law, Honorable Pr. Cit (Central), Nagpur Has Erred In Not Considering The Submission Made By The Appellant In Fair And

9. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the above Grounds of Appeal or to add new Grounds of Appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted that the ld.Pr.CIT has invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, only

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHARP DESIGNERS & ENGINEERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

9. The second issue raised in this appeal of the assessee relates to correctness of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. 10. Before us, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that there is no issue regarding the disallowance made by the AO amounting to Rs.1,26,880/- under clause (ii) of Rule 8D(2) of I.T. Rules, 1962. It is part

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHARP DESIGNER AND ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

9. The second issue raised in this appeal of the assessee relates to correctness of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. 10. Before us, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that there is no issue regarding the disallowance made by the AO amounting to Rs.1,26,880/- under clause (ii) of Rule 8D(2) of I.T. Rules, 1962. It is part

SHARP DESIGNERS AND ENGINEERS INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

9. The second issue raised in this appeal of the assessee relates to correctness of disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. 10. Before us, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that there is no issue regarding the disallowance made by the AO amounting to Rs.1,26,880/- under clause (ii) of Rule 8D(2) of I.T. Rules, 1962. It is part

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

68 though is on the assessee, so that his explanation would, however, require being substantiated or proved. The case law in the matter is legion, and toward which we may, if only for the sake of completeness of our order, advert to the some of the celebrated decisions by the Apex court in the matter i.e. A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. HEMANT BAGAREDDY MOTADOO, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

68 of the Act on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish the details of the identity and creditworthiness of loan creditors and the genuineness of the transactions in respect of the following parties: Sr. No. Name Amount of Loan taken during the year 1 Khandve Associates 2,52,05,000/- 2 Jacob Anthony 6,14,750/- 3 Jaswantraj

DCIT,JALGAON vs. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION P.LTD, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

40A(2)(b) of the Act were applicable. The CIT(A) noted that in earlier year, sum of Rs.4 lakhs was paid as salary to the lady and he accordingly, considered salary of Rs.4,60,000/- as reasonable and the balance sum of Rs.5 lakhs was disallowed. 16. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal against the same

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, JALGAON vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

40A(2)(b) of the Act were applicable. The CIT(A) noted that in earlier year, sum of Rs.4 lakhs was paid as salary to the lady and he accordingly, considered salary of Rs.4,60,000/- as reasonable and the balance sum of Rs.5 lakhs was disallowed. 16. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal against the same

MOHAN DAGADU CHOUGALE,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Mohan Dagadu Chougale Acit, Central Circle, C/O Kapil Dugdhalaya & Sweet Kolhapur Vs. Mart, 3068, A Ward, Kapiltirth Market, Kolhapur – 416002 Pan: Acwpc0051B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Mayuresh Doshi Department By : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R

40A(3) of the Act for cash payments. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.49,62,507/- on account of increase in capital under the head 'by self-account'. 8. On the facts

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

40A(3), 40(a)(ia), sec. 37 etc. The Assessing Officer erroneously and negligently treated all cash deposits as sales made by the assessee ignoring the vital fact that the assessee himself had disclosed meager sale of Rs.14,72,581 in his Profit &% Loss account as a part and parcel of return of income filed by him. All these facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. AISHWARYA CONSTRUCTION CO.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.2036/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,92,000/- towards disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of loans and advances for non-business purposes. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

40A(3) since such expenses have not been claimed / debited in the books of account. It was further submitted that a plain reading of the seized documents reveal that multiple expenses have been aggregated and recorded in a single entry and thus each expense is below Rs.10,000/- although clubbed together and recorded periodically in larger amounts. Relying on various

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

40A(3) since such expenses have not been claimed / debited in the books of account. It was further submitted that a plain reading of the seized documents reveal that multiple expenses have been aggregated and recorded in a single entry and thus each expense is below Rs.10,000/- although clubbed together and recorded periodically in larger amounts. Relying on various

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

40A(3) since such expenses have not been claimed / debited in the books of account. It was further submitted that a plain reading of the seized documents reveal that multiple expenses have been aggregated and recorded in a single entry and thus each expense is below Rs.10,000/- although clubbed together and recorded periodically in larger amounts. Relying on various