ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

83,58,184/- on by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

83,58,184/- on by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

68 of the Act. iii) The AO, upon verification of the relevant details/documents, shall record his clear findings as to the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the respective creditors, in respect of the transactions under consideration. 10. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

section 68 without bringing on record any material or evidence to prove that the long term capital gain declared by the Appellant is an accommodation entry against which appellant paid cash. 13 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well

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

83,244/- as ‘Income from Other Sources’ rather than invoking section 68 of the Act for unexplained Agricultural Receipts

ASHOK HIRACHAND SHAH,PANVEL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.812/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ashok Hirachand Shah, Assessing Officer, Plot No. 4, Mangal Bunglow, Ward – 2, Panvel Road No. 5, Sector No. 19, Vs. New Panvel, Tal.-Panvel-410206 Pan : Acdps4800M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajinkya Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of 17-12-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Denial Of Natural Justice & Proper Opportunity The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Appellant Was Denied Proper Opportunity & Natural Justice During The Assessment Proceedings. The Assessing Officer Called For Information At The Far End Of The Assessment Proceedings On 19/11/2018 & Despite The Appellant'S Authorized Representative Submitting The Details On 19/12/2018, The Ao Failed To Discuss Or Consider The Same. The Matter Ought To Have Been Remanded Back For Fresh Adjudication To Allow Proper Analysis Of The Transactions. 2. Addition Without Specifying The Section The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 1,49,05,289/- Made By The Ao Without Specifying The Section Under Which The Addition Was Made. The Non-Mention Of The Specific Section Renders The Assessment Order Bad In Law, As It Violates The Principles Of Natural Justice & Transparency In Taxation. 3. Failure To Discharge Onus Under Section 69A

83 (Jharkhand) (f) Dr. Prakash Tiwari Vs Commissioner of Income-tax [1983] 14 Taxman 252 (MP) Thus, the contention of the appellant wherein it has been contended that addition of Rs. 1,49,05,289/- has been made without specifying the section and hence the assessment order is bad in law is rejected. 4 ITA No.812/PUN/2025

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered – • Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings. • Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. NITIN MOHAN WADIKAR PVT.LTD,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.471/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 68 of the Act. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing of high quality machines. The assessee had declared unsecured loan of ₹ 1,04,83

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE vs. DHULE ZILHA PARISHAD KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

83,283/-, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee 3 ITA No.769/PUN/2024, AY 2020-21 observed that the assessee has satisfactorily explained the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions and hence the Ld. AO is not justified in applying the provisions of section 68

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

83 (SC) has laid down following\nratio with regard to provisions of section 263 of the Act:\n“There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to\ncorrect each and every type of mistake or error committed by the\nAssessing Officer; it is only when an order is erroneous that the\nsection will be attracted

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. MUKUND MANOHAR SANGAMNERKAR, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee in C

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1092/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Mukund Manohar Sangamnerkar, 210/B, Amogh, Opp. Ganjave Chowk, Navi Peth, Near Lokmanya Wachanalay, Pune- 411030. Pan : Adxps4789A Appellant Respondent C.O. No.09/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1092/Pun/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukund Manohar Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Sangamnerkar, 210/B, Amogh, Opp. Ganjave Chowk, Navi Peth, Near Lokmanya Wachanalay, Pune- 411030. Pan : Adxps4789A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Abhay A. Avchat Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.08.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

83,20,233/- to the income of the assessee and vide order dated 22.12.2019 determined the taxable income at Rs.3,59,31,320/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.76,11,090/-. 3. Against the above order, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in respect of share capital issued by the appellant company in spite of various details and case laws of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Bombay High Court and other high courts submitted from time to time. Further, the copies of which are given in Paper Book filed with

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

SHRI DANK KAILASH CHANDRAPRAKASH,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1908/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Dank Kailash Chandraprakash Kolhar Bk, Tal – Shrirampur, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist – Ahmednagar - 413710 …. Pan: Abjpd5995K Vs.

section 68 of the Act at ₹ 4,83,987/-. Before making addition, the assessee was given show cause notice

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

83 months inspite of having received e-mail stating non filing of return of income pursuant to section 153A of the Act due to COVID and technical glitches. The Addl. CIT is duty bound to examine everything in detail regarding the draft assessment order and having no sufficient time mechanically gave approval without examining the taxability u/s. 115BBE

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

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

83,68,460/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.24,99,11,774/- which pertains to disallowance of commission expenses of Rs.2,43,335/- & addition u/s 41(1) of the IT Act on account of waiver of loan of Rs.24,96,68,439/- by two banks in one time settlement scheme. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

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

83,68,460/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.24,99,11,774/- which pertains to disallowance of commission expenses of Rs.2,43,335/- & addition u/s 41(1) of the IT Act on account of waiver of loan of Rs.24,96,68,439/- by two banks in one time settlement scheme. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also