AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the Total Income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings

SHRIJEET FINANCE P LTD,BEED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.439/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shrijeet Finance Private Limited, The Assistant Ambejogai Road, Parli, V Commissioner Of Maharashtra – 431515. S Income Tax, Circle, Pan: Aaqcs2652F Jalna. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 25.10.2021 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed 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 Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.6,66,151/- Shrijeet Finance Private Limited [A]

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.6,66,151/- Shrijeet Finance Private Limited [A] made by the AO and not appreciating the contention

SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR,(HUF),,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.260/Pun/2018 िनधा!रण वष! / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 68 of the Act. Infact, there is some mess in the deposit of said cash originally in the capital gains account with the said bank and subsequently into the normal bank account of the assessee. 6. Further, the facts relating to other addition of balance of Rs.69 lakhs include that the said amount was credited in the bank

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

66,14,480/- for credits in bank account u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 13) The assessee denies liability to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act, 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, , NASHIK vs. SMT. PRIYA K. JAGTIYANI, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI KISHOR C. JAGTIYANI, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 1, Nashik …. Vs. Smt. Priya K. Jagtiyani L/H Of Late Kishor Chelaram Jagtiyani Office No.1, Shalimar Towers, Shalimar Chowk, Shivaji Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422001 Pan: Adepj7743C

68,958/-. The Assessing Officer noted that the stamp duty valuation of Basement sold was ₹ 1.44 crores as against the sale value declared by assessee at ₹ 66,51,000/- and observed that the difference of ₹ 78,02,000/- was taxable under section

DR. PRATAP PANDHIRANATH PATIL,PUNE vs. PCIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

66,534/-. 7. Thereafter, ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) called for the assessment records and issued show cause notice u/s.263 of the Act on 25.10.2024 referring to the sole issue that ld. AO erred in making the addition for income of Rs.42,83,244/- as ‘Income from Other Sources’ rather than invoking section 68

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 are not applicable, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the amendment brought in sub-section (2) of section 115BBE by the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 only: i) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 are not applicable, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the amendment brought in sub-section (2) of section 115BBE by the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 only: i) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com

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

66,185/-. Applying the GP rate of 18% shown by the assessee, addition of Rs.16,31,913/- was made by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 68

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, read with section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share application money) - Assessment ycar 2000-10 - During relevant year, assessee company had increased its share capital by issuing 7.93 lakh shares of Rs.10 each at a premium of Rs.390 - assessee originally filed a return showing a gross total income of Rs.24, 658 however, thereafter wrote

CRYSTAL GLAZING & CLADDING,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

66,923/- is disallowed as unexplained expenditure within the meaning of section 69C of the Income-tax Act. 1961. (b) On Perusal of balance sheet, it is noted that during the year under consideration, unsecured loans raised have been claimed at Rs.2,47.60.610/- as against unsecured loans of Rs.2,18,16,751/- claimed in the immediately preceding year

KAILASWASI NARAYAN ALIAS BAPU PATIL SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), KOLHAPUR

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

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

68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the taxability of the entire donations of Rs.24,82,619/- received by the assessee trust and also for non- consideration of the expenses of Rs.20,66,948/- claimed by the assessee while applying the provision of the sections

SURESH GULABCHAND OSWAL,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

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

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

section 68 the Act. The assessment was completed on 20.12.2017 u/s 143(3) 7 of the Act on total income of Rs.61,31,800/- including therein –(i) addition of Rs.24,66

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 by observing as under : “7. Further on perusal, the assessee was seen to have shown an opening balance in loans/ liability to the tune of Rs.2,66,36,192/-. Out of which 1,77,96,343/- was seen to be secured loans from banks and Rs.88,39,849/- out of the unsecured loans. The assessee

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

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

68 of the Act by observing as under : “7. Further on perusal, the assessee was seen to have shown an opening balance in loans/ liability to the tune of Rs.2,66,36,192/-. Out of which 1,77,96,343/- was seen to be secured loans from banks and Rs.88,39,849/- out of the unsecured loans. The assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

66,55,68/-)” 4.6 Ld.CIT(A) has also ignored the directions of the ITAT in its order dated 27.03.2024. The relevant paragraph of ld.CIT(A)’s order is reproduced here as under : “In ground No.2, the Appellant has contested the action of the AO of making an addition of Rs.2,76,65,568/- on account of sale of sugar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

66,55,68/-)” 4.6 Ld.CIT(A) has also ignored the directions of the ITAT in its order dated 27.03.2024. The relevant paragraph of ld.CIT(A)’s order is reproduced here as under : “In ground No.2, the Appellant has contested the action of the AO of making an addition of Rs.2,76,65,568/- on account of sale of sugar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

66,55,68/-)” 4.6 Ld.CIT(A) has also ignored the directions of the ITAT in its order dated 27.03.2024. The relevant paragraph of ld.CIT(A)’s order is reproduced here as under : “In ground No.2, the Appellant has contested the action of the AO of making an addition of Rs.2,76,65,568/- on account of sale of sugar