UPPAL SHAH PROP-J K SUGARS,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

73,82,925/- by holding that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus lying upon him in terms of section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR vs. UPPAL JITENDRA SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

73,82,925/- by holding that the assessee had failed to discharge the onus lying upon him in terms of section 68

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 36(l)(via)(d) of the Act while making an addition. 5. The Appellant prays that in the interest of justice the additional evidences may be admitted and the issue may be decided after considering the additional evidences. The Appellant relies on the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

SHRI PADMAKAR SOPAN KANDARFALE,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

73,000/- in Bank of Maharashtra as “unexplained money” u/s 69A of the Act and made its addition. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who upheld the addition made by the AO by observing as under : “7. I have considered the submissions made by the assessee and I find that they pertain

ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. DHIRAJ BHAUSAHEB NIKAM, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

73,269/- after claiming deduction of Rs.40,43,305/- as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) being the long term capital gain on sale of listed shares. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued

VIDYA ONLINE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(5), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13

73,515 on account of interest on refund not offered to tax 3 Vidya Online Private Limited 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal against the additions made u/s.41(1) of the Act as well as the addition made u/s.68 of the Act. 5. Ld. Counsel

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

68 of the IT Act on account of agricultural income of Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-, Ld. CIT(A) also reduced the addition made on account of other expenses of Rs.35,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/-. However, the addition of Rs.5,12,194/- made u/s 40A(3) and assessee’s claim of deduction of Rs.2,73

M/S. M.B.PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

68 of the IT Act on account of agricultural income of Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-, Ld. CIT(A) also reduced the addition made on account of other expenses of Rs.35,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/-. However, the addition of Rs.5,12,194/- made u/s 40A(3) and assessee’s claim of deduction of Rs.2,73

SANKET INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1957/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sanket Industries Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3), Jalna Flat No.101, Bhoomi Apartment, 1St Floor, Nutan Laxmi Chs, Plot No.9, Jvpd Scheme, Ville Parle (W), N.S. Road, No.8, Mumbai – 400056 Pan: Aafcs6118M Appellant Respondent

73,900/- out of the total unsecured loan of Rs.2,07,47,801/- under section 68 of the Act. The Learned

SUNIL KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.325/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, C.S. No.34, Laxmi Bunglow, Revenue Colony, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Afdpg9973Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.327/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (Huf), C.S. No.34, Laxmi Bunglow, Revenue Colony, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aahhs9603Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. Both The Appeals Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Kolhapur Dated

73,400/- in the individual capacity. At the end of the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer made the additions u/s 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the above decision of the CIT(A), the assessee

SUNIL KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI (HUF),,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.325/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani, C.S. No.34, Laxmi Bunglow, Revenue Colony, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Afdpg9973Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.327/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sunil Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (Huf), C.S. No.34, Laxmi Bunglow, Revenue Colony, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli-416416. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aahhs9603Q बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Sangli. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. Both The Appeals Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Kolhapur Dated

73,400/- in the individual capacity. At the end of the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer made the additions u/s 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the above decision of the CIT(A), the assessee

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

Section is not turned into an empty ritual. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the approval must be granted only on the basis of material available on record and the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. 47. In view of our discussion made here-in-above, considering

SUHEL INAYATULLA PUNEKAR,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

section 68 of the Act alleging that the sum of Rs.10.00 lakh is unexplained cash credit. 5. Now the aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book containing 73

SANKET CHAKOR SHAH,WALCHAND NAGAR, INDAPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Saket Chakor Shah Vs. Dcit, Central Behind Post Colony, Walchandnagar, Circle 2(2), Walchandnagar, Indapur, Pune Pune - 413114 Pan : Cqyps4526H Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jyoti Chakor Shah Vs. Dcit, Central New Bazzar Peth Walchandnagar, Circle 2(2), Walchandnagar, Indapur, Pune Pune - 413114 Pan : Bmxps7863M Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 31-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31-01-2022

73,077. The return consisted of income from conducting tuitions and also carrying out the work of accounts writing. Thereafter, the AO initiated re-assessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) on the ground that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.1,41,01,500 along with two other

JYOI CHAKOR SHAH,WALCHAND NAGAR, INDAPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Saket Chakor Shah Vs. Dcit, Central Behind Post Colony, Walchandnagar, Circle 2(2), Walchandnagar, Indapur, Pune Pune - 413114 Pan : Cqyps4526H Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jyoti Chakor Shah Vs. Dcit, Central New Bazzar Peth Walchandnagar, Circle 2(2), Walchandnagar, Indapur, Pune Pune - 413114 Pan : Bmxps7863M Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 31-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31-01-2022

73,077. The return consisted of income from conducting tuitions and also carrying out the work of accounts writing. Thereafter, the AO initiated re-assessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) on the ground that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.1,41,01,500 along with two other

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

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

68 of the Act amounting to Rs.5,16,85,602 is not warranted and therefore is deleted. Accordingly grounds of appeal no 2 & 3 are allowed. 9. Ground No. 4 9.1 In this regard submission made by the appellant is as below:- The said addition relates to interest paid to the creditors for which additions have been made earlier. Elaborate

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and particular withdrawal/repayment is not available on the date of subsequent credit. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) has admitted that

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE 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 Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

73 lakhs for the A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. The claim of such set off against the ‘deemed income’ is the issue for adjudication in these appeals. Otherwise, there is no dispute about the additional income for both assessment years. 4. Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and is engaged