ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. YOGI COTEX PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2058/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs Yogi Cotex Private Acit, Central Circle-1, Nashik Limited, 4A, Vikas Centre, S V Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai-400054 Maharashtra Pan-Aaacy5355P Appellant Respondent

68 results in unjust double taxation, as the amount forms part of the aggregate sum of Rs. 5,00,01,614/- that was voluntarily disclosed and offered to tax by the Deesan Group across its constituent entities during the course of post-search compliance. It was submitted that the group entities, including the appellant, had disclosed unaccounted income from scrap

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO. ,NANDED vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , NANDED

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

75,070/- which includes the additional income of Rs.1,00,05,000/-. As per appellant, the said amount of Rs.1,00,05,000/- had been offered for tax inadvertently under the head income from other sources. The appellant has further submitted that section 69C of the Act A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 requires an assessee to explain the source

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO.,LATUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

75,070/- which includes the additional income of Rs.1,00,05,000/-. As per appellant, the said amount of Rs.1,00,05,000/- had been offered for tax inadvertently under the head income from other sources. The appellant has further submitted that section 69C of the Act A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 requires an assessee to explain the source

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

68 of the Act. The addition in the hands of assessee has been made at ₹ 80 lakhs. However, during the course of search, information was collected and thereafter, the case of assessee was picked up for scrutiny and it was noted by the Assessing Officer that one Shri Nitin Patil was the key person in three firms i.e. M/s. Ghatge

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

68 of the Act. The addition in the hands of assessee has been made at ₹ 80 lakhs. However, during the course of search, information was collected and thereafter, the case of assessee was picked up for scrutiny and it was noted by the Assessing Officer that one Shri Nitin Patil was the key person in three firms i.e. M/s. Ghatge

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. AKASH FARMS PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

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.1482/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Akash Farms Llp, Nath House, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aadca3303J Revenue By : Smt. Shabana Parveen Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 1, Aurangabad Dated 29.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Passing The Order Both On The Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Failing To Give To The A.O. Reasonable Opportunity Required To Be Given To The A.O. As Per Rule 46A(3) As Only Seven Days Were Given To The A.O. For Examining & Rebutting The Considerable Additional Evidence Produced By The Assessee & For Submitting The Remand Report & The Order Was Passed By Cit(A) On The Very Next Day After The Remand Report Was Due. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Not Upholding The Addition Of Rs.42608528/- In Light Of The Decision By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Pcit Vs Nra Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (Reported In 103 Taxmann.Com 48) As In The Instant Case The Investor Company Was In Loss Of Rs.65,459/- & Had Negative Figures Of Reserve & Surplus Of Rs.3.60 Crores.

section 68 of the Act when the identity, capacity and genuineness of the transactions of the loans stand explained. The allotment of shares to Kagliwal against the outstanding amounts is undoubted and the same is very much in order. Relying on the various decisions, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the said addition of Rs.4

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

section 68 are absent, the addition made is 9 prima facie unjustified. He submitted that the CIT(A) / NFAC without understanding the evidence on record in a very cryptic order has sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer which is not correct. 16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing

M/S. MAYFAIR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2233/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Mayfair Builders & Vs Ito, Ward Developers, 2(3), Pune 1027, New Nana Peth, Pune-411001 Maharashtra Pan-Aacfm1312R Appellant Respondent

75,000/- 6. Mahmood Musavi 3,30,000/- Total 24,50,250/- 7. From perusal of section 68 of the Act, I find

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

BHUSHAN UTTAMRAO BACHHAV,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.503/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

68 of the I.T. Act 1961 being made by both the lower authorities in violation of principles of natural justice the same is bad in law and void ab initio and hence the same may please be deleted. 5. Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal and by way of an alternate submission in the matter, the appellant submits that

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

75,000/- under section 68- unexplained cash credits, being unsecured loans by concluding that appellant has failed to discharge

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. VAISHNAVI SATISH BANKAR, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

75,000/- under section 68- unexplained cash credits, being unsecured loans by concluding that appellant has failed to discharge

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

68 of the Act amounting to Rs.5,16,85,602 is not warranted and\ntherefore is deleted. Accordingly grounds of appeal no 2 & 3 are allowed.\n9. Ground No. 4\n9.1 In this regard submission made by the appellant is as below:-\nThe said addition relates to interest paid to the creditors for which additions have\nbeen made earlier. Elaborate

SARIKA ASHOK SATAV,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1952/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

75,000/- as unexplained cash credit added by the A.O. u/s.68 is sustained. The A.O. also notes in the Remand Report, that two parties namely Shri. R. G. Jangam and Shri. Ganesh G. Potle never attended the Remand Proceeding nor filed any confirmations. Five of the creditors Shri. R. K. Satav, Shri. S. B. Satav, Shri. Yogesh G. Satav, Shri

KOLHAPUR TIMBER AND FURNITURE MART,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act should not have been invoked. However, Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with these contentions and affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued referring to following written submissions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. MARSH FINCOM PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1342/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Aurangabad. Vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Gold Crest, Ns Road No.10, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan : Aabck0760B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Quashing Proceedings U/S. 153A In Respect Of Assessee Where The Assessee’S Case Was Covered Under Section 132 Of The Act Dated 20.08.2014. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Made

section 68 of the Act in respect of share capital and premium received from three different shareholders on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of Shri Sandeep B. Jhaveri and requisite criteria for establishing genuineness of the cash credit is placed on record and no contrary evidence has been found by the AO. In support

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 68 is called for. Since the assessee has placed the contract note, payment through cheques identifying the company whose shares were transacted, the genuineness of claim of long term capital gain should not have been doubted. We do not find merit in these contentions of the assessee in the light of the facts that there is prevalent practice

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PRATHAMESH CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2260, 2261 & 2262/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Nashik. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Prathamesh Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 4/5, Anandkunj Appttl. Juna Gangapur Naka, Gangapur Road, Nashik. Pan: Aaecp1078Q ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

75,20,000/- and thus, the sum of Rs.8,09,87,500/- was shown as share premium in the assessment year 2010- 11. The Assessing Officer in Para 4.2 had given details of various 35 entities which are the subscribers of the share of assessee at share premium of Rs.190/-. The tabulation mentioned by the Assessing Officer in Para