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

sections": [ "143(2)", "142(1)", "133(6)", "68", "115BBE", "271AAC", "69", "270A", "131", "46A", "250(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred

GAJANAN AGROFEEDS P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIR-1 (2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.298/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gajanan Agrofeeds Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Cir-1(2), Pune. 3, Sushila Complex, Station Vs Road, Baramati, Pune – 413102. Pan: Aaccg 3651 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 17.01.2020For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances In The Case & In Law The Lower Authorities Erred In Rejecting The Additional Evidences Filled Under Section 46A Of The Income Tax Rules, 1961 Without Realizing The Fact That Such Additional Evidences Ought To Have Been Admitted As It Goes To The Root Cause Of Issue & Therefore, Prayer Is Made For Admission Of Additional Evidences. 2. On The Facts & The Circumstances In The Case & In Law The Lower Authorities Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.86,09,000/- Being Unsecured Loans From Sister Concern By Invoking Provisions Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, By Rejecting The Submissions Made In This Regard & Also Additional Evidences Submitted.

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 without realizing the fact that such additional evidences ought to have been admitted as it goes to the root cause of issue and therefore, prayer is made for admission of additional evidences. 2. On the facts and the circumstances in the case and in law the lower authorities erred in making addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE vs. DHULE ZILHA PARISHAD KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT DHULE, DHULE

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

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

46A (3) of the Income Tax Rule 1962, clearly mentions that the Commissioner (Appeal) shall not take into account any evidence produced by the assessee unless the Assessing Officer has been allowed a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witness produced by the assessee.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case

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

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act made addition of Rs.70,11,472/-. 15. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the above addition by observing as under: “28. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions filed by the appellant. There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee has taken fresh loans from

ROASHAN VISHNU PATHARE, L/H OF VISHNU TUKARAM PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.221/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 54F deduction claim of Rs.60,18,750/- in the course of assessment dated 31.03.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order, it emerges during the course of hearing on perusal of not only assessment discussions but also from the learned CIT(A)’s findings that he has fails to prove that he has reinvested the corresponding capital

DR. RAMCHANDRA PANDURANG SHINDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

68 of the Act of Rs.10 lakhs. 4. Briefly in the facts of the case, the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had purchased the land at Dhumalwadi, Taluka Koregaon, Dist. Satara for a consideration of Rs.32 lakhs. The assessee explained the source of investment made in the purchase

SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

68 of the Act arising out of sale of shares of Mishka Finance and\nTrading Company.\nReferring to the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of\nPCIT vs. Smt. Kalawati Sharma vide Income Tax Appeal No.57/2021 order dated\n17.05.2022 he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has\ndismissed the appeal filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

68 of the Act, on account of unexplained credits. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred, by setting aside the matters pertaining to Ground No. 1 & 2 (supra) to the A.O. for verification without granting the opportunity to the A.O. to submit the remand report. 4. On the facts and circumstances

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

68 of the Act, on account of unexplained credits. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred, by setting aside the matters pertaining to Ground No. 1 & 2 (supra) to the A.O. for verification without granting the opportunity to the A.O. to submit the remand report. 4. On the facts and circumstances

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 in admitting the additional evidence submitted by the taxpayer, thereby not seeking the Assessing Officer’s remand report. His further case is that the assessee had not filed any details proving genuineness of the impugned sundry creditors which made the Assessing Officer to treat the said sum as lacking genuineness, followed addition u/s.68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

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

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, made addition of the same to the total income of the assessee. Since the assessee has also paid interest amounting to Rs.17,80,059/-, the Assessing Officer disallowed the same u/s 37 of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ICHALKARANJI, ICHALKARANJI vs. JAIKISHAN TEXTILE TRADERS LLP, ICHALKARANJI

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1, Vs. Jaikishan Textile Traders Llp, Ichalkaranji Shop No.1, Cloth & Yarn Mer. Asso. Bldg, Kagwade Mala, Ichalkaranji – 416115 Pan : Aamfj9148E Appellant Respondent

section 68 addition of Rs.29,61,06,768/-; and that too, after allegedly admitting the assessee‟s additional evidence, in violation of rule 46A

THE ITO, WARD-8(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SILICON SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3017/Ahd/2014 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 have been fulfilled. 3. The CIT (A) erred in deleting addition being unexplained share capital of Rs. 1,56,35,000/-, unexplained share application money of Rs. 25,00,000/- and share premium of Rs. 2,22,65,000/- u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. The CIT (A) erred in deleting

PODDAR FININ COSULTANCY PVT.LTD,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, PANVEL

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1007/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 68 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.12.10 crores, we note that the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion affirming the assessment finding to this effect reads as under:- I have carefully considered the facts of the case, findings of the AO “6. in the assessment order as well as remand report, submission of the appellant and material placed

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

section 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue is therefore dismissed. 16. Ground No.4 by the Revenue relates to deletion of Rs.52,13,333/- by the CIT(A) as undisclosed investment in properties. 17. Briefly stated relevant facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Rajesh Prakash

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

section 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue is therefore dismissed. 16. Ground No.4 by the Revenue relates to deletion of Rs.52,13,333/- by the CIT(A) as undisclosed investment in properties. 17. Briefly stated relevant facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Rajesh Prakash

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

section 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue is therefore dismissed. 16. Ground No.4 by the Revenue relates to deletion of Rs.52,13,333/- by the CIT(A) as undisclosed investment in properties. 17. Briefly stated relevant facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Rajesh Prakash

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

section 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue is therefore dismissed. 16. Ground No.4 by the Revenue relates to deletion of Rs.52,13,333/- by the CIT(A) as undisclosed investment in properties. 17. Briefly stated relevant facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Rajesh Prakash