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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made in the Assessment order without appreciating the facts as brought on record? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) is correct in ignoring the compelling 2 evidences in the form of whatsapp chats with clear pictures of Rs.10

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

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

81,68,339.10 is not\nappearing on Liability side of the Balance Sheet under the heading\nReserves and Other Funds but is separately disclosed as Overdue Interest.\nSimilarly in the Profit and Loss Account the amount of Rs.47,01,85,366.04\n[being the interest on N.P.A. during the year] is not appearing under the\nheading Provisions but is debited

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

81,03,870/-.\n8.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC it was argued that the addition u/s 68 of the\nAct has been made by the Assessing Officer in an inappropriate manner without\nconsidering the submissions of the assessee. The assessee submitted that majority\nof the loans covered under the above referred addition of Rs.5.18 crores are carried\nover balances

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. In view of above discussion addition of Rs.1,18,82,797/- made by the AO stand confirmed. These grounds are therefore dismissed.” 39. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 173 of the paper book submitted that the amount of Rs.1,18,82,797/- was credited to the capital account of the partner by debiting

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

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

81,68,339.10 is not\nappearing on Liability side of the Balance Sheet under the heading\nReserves and Other Funds but is separately disclosed as Overdue Interest.\nSimilarly in the Profit and Loss Account the amount of Rs.47,01,85,366.04\n[being the interest on N.P.A. during the year] is not appearing under the\nheading Provisions but is debited

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

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

81,68,339.10 is not\nappearing on Liability side of the Balance Sheet under the heading\nReserves and Other Funds but is separately disclosed as Overdue Interest.\nSimilarly in the Profit and Loss Account the amount of Rs.47,01,85,366.04\n[being the interest on N.P.A. during the year] is not appearing under the\nheading Provisions but is debited

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

section 263 jurisdiction. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments and find no reason to affirm the PCIT’s following detailed discussion:- “3. I have carefully considered facts of the case as well as reply of the assessee reproduced as above. It is undisputed that there were huge

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

81,702/- under section 68- unexplained cash credits, being unsecured loans by concluding that 2 ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] appellant

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

81,702/- under section 68- unexplained cash credits, being unsecured loans by concluding that 2 ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] appellant

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

81,68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

81,68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

81,68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

81,68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

81,68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

81,68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

81,68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

81,68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section

M/S. GORDHANSINGH S RAJPUROHIT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PANVEL

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

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

81,370/- on account of unexplained sundry creditors vide para 6 of his order for want of confirmations from the creditors and explanation as to why these liabilities had persisted for such a long time. 4.4 The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition of Rs.5,60,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loans u/s 68