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

SANJAY VASANTRAO WANI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2491/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2012-13

68,670/-. Assessee did not maintain books of account exclusively for the Real Estate business. He however maintained books of account for the commission and 2 Sanjay Vasantrao Wani brokerage income. There is no dispute about the taxation of commission income. However, the dispute is about the income from Real Estate business. Considering the facts that the assessee

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

section 40A(3) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.66,20,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 6. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. It was explained that the reopening

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

68 of the Act, 1961 would be attracted. That apart, we find that the finding recorded by the ITAT as aforequoted is a finding of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record. Therefore, no interference can be made. The appeal lacks merit and, therefore, 13 Tara Constructions deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The substantial question

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68

ADIENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68

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

68,600/- paid in cash for the purchase of material was required to be disallowed u/s 40A(A)(3) of the IT Act. However, the same was not done by the AO. As the AO has failed to disallow the above amount in view of the provisions of section

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 40A(3). The brokers are in fact required to maintain separate bank account for the funds received from or on behalf of the clients so that the same do not merge with that of the broker himself. What is equally important is the date on which the shares were dematerialized. This is as no transaction could be carried

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

68 on account of alleged unexplained share application money. 2. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.1,81,389/- on account of disallowance of part of interest u/s.36 (1)(iii) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming

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

68 on account of alleged unexplained share application money. 2. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.1,81,389/- on account of disallowance of part of interest u/s.36 (1)(iii) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming

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

68 or 69 or 69A, as the case may be as well as sec. 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

VIJAY GULABRAO SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and (iii) Rs.3,20,700/- on account of disallowance of expenditure under the provisions of section 40A

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

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"

section 40A(3), 40(a)(ia), 68, 36(1)(iii) etc. over and above the GP rate above is also

JAIN ASHAPURI SHINDE ASSOCIATES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1),, PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Vastue Estate The Income Tax Officer 82-A, East Street Galleria Ward - 7(1) Vs. Camp, Pune 411001 Pune Pan – Aaefv5918N Appellant Respondent

40A(3) as well as those made under Sections 68, 69G, lower withdrawals, TDRS brokerage and interest expenses, etc. And that

JAIN ASHAPURI ESTATE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Vastue Estate The Income Tax Officer 82-A, East Street Galleria Ward - 7(1) Vs. Camp, Pune 411001 Pune Pan – Aaefv5918N Appellant Respondent

40A(3) as well as those made under Sections 68, 69G, lower withdrawals, TDRS brokerage and interest expenses, etc. And that

JAIN ASHAPURI ESTATE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1),, PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Vastue Estate The Income Tax Officer 82-A, East Street Galleria Ward - 7(1) Vs. Camp, Pune 411001 Pune Pan – Aaefv5918N Appellant Respondent

40A(3) as well as those made under Sections 68, 69G, lower withdrawals, TDRS brokerage and interest expenses, etc. And that