GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

section 68 5 Rick Lunsford Trade and 67 to 68 SLP dismissed upholding that it is Investment Ltd. Vs CIT [2017] open

DILIP JUHARMAN JAIN ,RAIGAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1242/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dilip Juharmal Jain, The Acit, Bazarpeth, Mirchi Galli, At & V Circle Panvel. Post Pen Tal Pen Dist, S Raigad – 402107. Pan: Aappj5566P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024

68 of Rs.39,67,841/- is unsustainable in law. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.39,67,841/- made under section

V J & SONS,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 V J & Sons, 1227 E Ward, Rajaram Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur – 416008 …. Pan: Aabfv0324M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle, Kolhapur

67,50,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. 8. Before deciding the issue, reference is also made

HEM KIRAN DIESELS,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 V J & Sons, 1227 E Ward, Rajaram Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur – 416008 …. Pan: Aabfv0324M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle, Kolhapur

67,50,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. 8. Before deciding the issue, reference is also made

SHRI PARSHWANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTH,SATARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

67,41,372/- and the fact that despite several notices, the assessee has not divulged the source thereof, are facts which are not in dispute. In the said circumstances, the assessing officer cannot be found fault with for having brought the said amount to tax under section 68

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

67,946/-; vis-à-vis Basement in Gurudev Towers, the assessee had declared the short term capital gains at ₹ 6,68,958/-. 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

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

67,000 under section 69A; and (ii) gift received from wife of Rs. 2 ITA No.1453/PUN/2025, AY 2017-18 50,00,000/- as cash credit under section 68

RAHUL NEMGONDA PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 68 of the Act\nas unexplained cash credit. He, however, contended that the addition\nshould be restricted only to peak credit to the extent of Rs.15,27,000/-.\nHe argued that bringing to tax the gross amount of cash deposits would\nresult in double taxation of the same income as the amounts withdrawn\nwould be always available against

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. II. To examine the feasibility of addition on account of agriculture expenditure of Rs.4,36,820/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 9. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee made multifold arguments. Firstly, he stated that ld. PCIT erred

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP ,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 of the Act for\nthe preceding years (i.e. AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19) and that\nmajority of the unsecured loans are flowing from the preceding\nyears wherein no further loan was taken during the year or\nthat closing balance of loan increased due to interest, it can be\nreasonably said that the Ld. AO and Ld. ACIT

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

Section 68. In the instant\nappeal no enquiry was made by the AO to obtain information from the creditors.\n8.6 Based on the above discussion it is evident that the appellant has discharge\nthe onus but while making the addition the AO has not done any further investigation/\nenquiry in drawing an adverse inference.\n8.7 In view

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

SHRI SANTOSH HARICHAND KATRELA, ,BEED vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, BEED

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.339/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Santosh Harichand Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Beed. Katrela, Audut Campus, Jalna Road, Gujrathi Colony Beed, Beed- 431122. Pan : Akgpk6862N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Filed With Delay Of 99 Days. In The Light Of The Fact That Due To Covid-19 Pandemic The Period Of Limitation Has Already Been Extended By Hon’Ble Supreme

68 of the I T Act, though it’s ingredient is not fulfilled. Thus, addition may please be deleted. 5. The Appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3 4. Facts of the case, in brief

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act should have been applied in this regard and the decision of the Ld. AO to not draw any adverse inference about the substantive loan of Rs.3,37,65,561/- was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3.5 The assessee filed her detailed reply to the show cause notice issued

PARANJAPE PENDSE ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2014-15

67,68,143/- out of which the CIT(A) / NFAC deleted an amount of Rs.1,65,18,143/- and sustained an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- only out of the adhoc disallowance of expenses @ 20%, details of which are given at para 7 of this order. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance

SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT,JAYSINGHPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE ICHALKARANJI CIRCLE, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.540/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Vs The Assistant 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co-Op Commissioner Of Hsg Society, Income Tax, Jaysinghpur – 416101. Cir Ichalkaranji Circle, Maharashtra Ichalkaranji, Pan: Adlpg5040N Maharashtra – 416101. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.541/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Vs The Assistant 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co-Op Commissioner Of Hsg Society, Income Tax, Jaysinghpur – 416101. Cir Ichalkaranji Circle, Maharashtra Ichalkaranji, Pan: Adlpg5040N Maharashtra – 416101. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Assistant Vs Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Commissioner Of Income 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co- Tax, Op Hsg Society, Kolhapur. Jaysinghpur – 416101. Maharashtra Pan: Adlpg5040N Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

68,85,000/- out of total addition made by the AO of Rs.9,67,75,000/- u/s 69 of the Act. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to grant relief to the assessee after due verification on issue of AMT credit of Rs.1

SANJAY DANCHAND GHODAWAT,JAYSINGHPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE ICHALKARANJI CIRCLE, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.540/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Vs The Assistant 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co-Op Commissioner Of Hsg Society, Income Tax, Jaysinghpur – 416101. Cir Ichalkaranji Circle, Maharashtra Ichalkaranji, Pan: Adlpg5040N Maharashtra – 416101. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.541/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Vs The Assistant 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co-Op Commissioner Of Hsg Society, Income Tax, Jaysinghpur – 416101. Cir Ichalkaranji Circle, Maharashtra Ichalkaranji, Pan: Adlpg5040N Maharashtra – 416101. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Assistant Vs Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Commissioner Of Income 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co- Tax, Op Hsg Society, Kolhapur. Jaysinghpur – 416101. Maharashtra Pan: Adlpg5040N Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

68,85,000/- out of total addition made by the AO of Rs.9,67,75,000/- u/s 69 of the Act. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to grant relief to the assessee after due verification on issue of AMT credit of Rs.1

DEVTECH M2M LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21 Devtech M2M Limited Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), 4Th Floor, Sava House, Pune Vs. Opp New Airport Road, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aadcb4376Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

67,784/- by invoking the provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Similarly, the Assessing Officer, on the basis