Veena Estate (P) Ltd. v. CIT

461 ITR 483High Court2024#2521 most cited

What is Veena Estate (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee cannot challenge a defect or the validity of a penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 at a later appellate stage if no objection was raised from the inception of the proceedings and the assessee participated substantively without demonstrating prejudice.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Veena Estate (P) Ltd. v. CIT · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 274 notice · defect in penalty notice · validity of penalty notice · objection to notice · waiver of objection · prejudice · furnishing inaccurate particulars of income · concealment of income · appellate stage objection

Also reported as

158 Taxmann.com 341

Sections most often in play

Section 274Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 143(2)Section 133ASection 148

Issues it is cited on

section 270a(8)satisfaction for initiation of penaltysection 65asection 2(12a)section 153(c)(1)section 115jcsection 163section 66section 80ib(10)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271bsection 274

Judgments citing Veena Estate (P) Ltd. v. CIT

DAZZLER CONFECTIONERY COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1)(1, MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8411/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Sarda, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35D

…025, decided on 01.05.2025 wherein, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal not only considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh (supra), but also in the case of Veena Estate (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2024) 461 ITR 483 (Bom.), which was delivered in favour of the Revenue, and held as under: 5. Thereafter, the AO issued a show cause notice dated 27.12.2008 for concealment of the particular of income or/and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income and ultimately vide penalty order dated 18.01.2022 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed the penalty to the tun…

AMBER CORPORATION,KALYAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8373/MUM/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR. DR.)
Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…urisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) (FB). 8. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (2024) 461 ITR 483 (Bom.) passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, concerning the identical issue, wherein it was held that if an Assessee does not challenge the validity of notice during the penalty or appellate proceedings but instead responds substantially to the allegations, such objections are barred at a later stage. 9. We have heard the parties and p…

M/S.ALLIED DIGITAL SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the Assessee‟s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8147/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Allied Digital Services Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central 808, 8Th Floor, Mafatlal Centre, Circile 1(3), 905,9Th Floor, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021. Old Cgo Building, Pan – Aaaca5509K Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The A.Y. 20101-11. 2. In The Instant Case, The Ao Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2013 Under Section 143 (3) R.W.S. 153(A) Of The Act Has Made The Additions Of Rs.5,35,91,882/- & Rs.1,25,66,049/- On Account Of Disallowances Under Section 69C Of The Act & Section 2 M/S. Allied Digital Services Limited

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…025, decided on 01.05.2025 wherein, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal not only considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh (supra), but also in the case of Veena Estate (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2024) 461 ITR 483 (Bom.), which was delivered in favour of the Revenue, and held as under : 5. Thereafter, the AO issued a show cause notice dated 27.12.2008 for concealment of the particular of income or/and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income and ultimately vide penalty order dated 18.01.2022 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed the penalty to the tu…

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 128/HYD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (461 ITR 483) and submitted that where the assessee has not raised any objection regarding the alleged defect in the notice at the initial stage, such objection cannot be permitted to be raised at the Tribunal stage, particularly in the absence of any prejudice caused to the assessee. It was submitted that in the present case, the assessee never objected befo…

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 127/HYD/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (461 ITR 483) and submitted that where the assessee has not raised any objection regarding the alleged defect in the notice at the initial stage, such objection cannot be permitted to be raised at the Tribunal stage, particularly in the absence of any prejudice caused to the assessee. It was submitted that in the present case, the assessee never objected befo…

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., CETRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 126/HYD/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.126, 127 & 128/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Asst. Year:2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), Pan: Ablpa2822L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 02/02/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Three Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Ahuja (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”), All Dated 25.11.2024 For The A.Y.2007-08, A.Y.2008-09 & A.Y.2009-10 Respectively. Since All These Three Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee & The Issues Involved Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (461 ITR 483) and submitted that where the assessee has not raised any objection regarding the alleged defect in the notice at the initial stage, such objection cannot be permitted to be raised at the Tribunal stage, particularly in the absence of any prejudice caused to the assessee. It was submitted that in the present case, the assessee never objected befo…

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

ITA 7132/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A K Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…025, decided on 01.05.2025 wherein, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal not only considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh (supra), but also in the case of Veena Estate (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2024) 461 ITR 483 (Bom.), which was delivered in favour of the Revenue, and held as under : 5. Thereafter, the AO issued a show cause notice dated 27.12.2008 for concealment of the particular of income or/and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income and ultimately vide penalty order dated 18.01.2022 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed the penalty to the t…

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

ITA 7131/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A K Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…025, decided on 01.05.2025 wherein, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal not only considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh (supra), but also in the case of Veena Estate (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2024) 461 ITR 483 (Bom.), which was delivered in favour of the Revenue, and held as under : 5. Thereafter, the AO issued a show cause notice dated 27.12.2008 for concealment of the particular of income or/and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income and ultimately vide penalty order dated 18.01.2022 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed the penalty to the t…

CHIRAGKUMAR RAJENDRABHAI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No. 7130/M/2025 is allowed

ITA 7130/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri A K Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

…025, decided on 01.05.2025 wherein, the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal not only considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Md. Farhan A Shaikh (supra), but also in the case of Veena Estate (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2024) 461 ITR 483 (Bom.), which was delivered in favour of the Revenue, and held as under : 5. Thereafter, the AO issued a show cause notice dated 27.12.2008 for concealment of the particular of income or/and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income and ultimately vide penalty order dated 18.01.2022 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act imposed the penalty to the t…

CLASSIC SHARE & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4962/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Girish Agrawal, ()

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.4962/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Classic Share & Stock Vs. Deputy Broking Services Commissioner of Limited Income-tax, Central 121, RadhaBhuvan, 1st Circle 7(1), Mumbai- Floor, Nagindas Master 400 020 Road, Fort, Mumbai- 400020 PAN: AACCC5754P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Gagan Khandelwal Respondent by ShriVirabhadra S. Mahajan,(SR. D.R.) Date of Hearing 30.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.12.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.…

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

ITA 468/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 153D

…g any plea of breach of principles of natural justice, such plea would be \nrequired to be tested on the aspect of prejudice, as observed in para 62 in case of \nVeena Estate (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com \n341 (Bombay)/[2024] 461 ITR 483 (Bombay) [11-01-2024].\nIt is abundantly clear from the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme \nCourt as noted above, that a technical plea of breach of principles of natural \njustice cannot be taken, unless a case of prejudice has been made out, and if no \ncase of prejudice is made out, certainly a plea of breach of principles of natur…

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 467/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 153D

…g any plea of breach of principles of natural justice, such plea would be \nrequired to be tested on the aspect of prejudice, as observed in para 62 in case of \nVeena Estate (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com \n341 (Bombay)/[2024] 461 ITR 483 (Bombay) [11-01-2024]. \n\nIt is abundantly clear from the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme \nCourt as noted above, that a technical plea of breach of principles of natural \njustice cannot be taken, unless a case of prejudice has been made out, and if no \ncase of prejudice is made out, certainly a plea of breach of principles of na…

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 466/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139Section 153CSection 153D

…ting any plea of breach of principles of natural justice, such plea would be\nrequired to be tested on the aspect of prejudice, as observed in para 62 in case of\nVeena Estate (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com\n341 (Bombay)/[2024] 461 ITR 483 (Bombay) [11-01-2024].\nIt is abundantly clear from the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme\nCourt as noted above, that a technical plea of breach of principles of natural\njustice cannot be taken, unless a case of prejudice has been made out, and if no\ncase of prejudice is made out, certainly a plea of breach of principles of natural\…

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1634 to 1637/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2020-21 Vijay Tukaram Raundal DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Office No. C 708, Teerth Pune Technospace, Next to Mercedes Vs. Showroom, Bangalore Mumbai Highway, Baner Road, Baner, Pune – 411045 PAN : AAQPR0124G (Appellant) (Respondent) SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Assessment years : 2013-14 to 2015-16 Vijay Tukaram Raundal DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Office No. C 708, Teerth Pune Technospace, Next to Mercedes V…

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1636/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1634 to 1637/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2020-21 Vijay Tukaram Raundal DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Office No. C 708, Teerth Pune Technospace, Next to Mercedes Vs. Showroom, Bangalore Mumbai Highway, Baner Road, Baner, Pune – 411045 PAN : AAQPR0124G (Appellant) (Respondent) SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Assessment years : 2013-14 to 2015-16 Vijay Tukaram Raundal DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Office No. C 708, Teerth Pune Technospace, Next to Mercedes V…

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1635/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1634 to 1637/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2020-21 Vijay Tukaram Raundal DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Office No. C 708, Teerth Pune Technospace, Next to Mercedes Vs. Showroom, Bangalore Mumbai Highway, Baner Road, Baner, Pune – 411045 PAN : AAQPR0124G (Appellant) (Respondent) SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Assessment years : 2013-14 to 2015-16 Vijay Tukaram Raundal DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Office No. C 708, Teerth Pune Technospace, Next to Mercedes V…

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

ITA 1634/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1634 to 1637/PUN/2024 Assessment years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2020-21 Vijay Tukaram Raundal Office No. C 708, Teerth Technospace, Next to Mercedes Showroom, Bangalore Mumbai Highway, Baner Road, Baner, Pune - 411045 PAN : AAQPR0124G (Appellant) Vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(2), Pune (Respondent) SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Assessment years : 2013-14 to 2015-16 Vijay Tukaram Raundal Office No. C 708, Teerth Technospace, Next to Mercedes Showroom, Bangalore Mumbai Highway, Baner…

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 808/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 274

…Gaurav Ajmera ITA No. 808/Ind/2024 – AY 2017-18 1 अपीलीय अधिकरण, इन्दौर न्यायपीठ, इन्दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 808/Ind/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gaurav Ajmera 38, Ram Mohalla, Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) DCIT (Central)-2 Indore (Respondent /Revenue ) बनाम/ Vs. P.A. No. AGLPA8863C Assessee by | Shri Pawan Ved, AR Revenue by | Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 07.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.08.2025 आदेश/ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by orde…

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

ITA 491/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 292BSection 68

…ting any plea of breach of principles of natural justice, such plea\nwould be required to be tested on the aspect of prejudice, as observed in\npara 62 in case of Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax\n[2024] 158 taxmann.com 341 (Bombay)/[2024] 461 ITR 483 (Bombay)\n[11-01-2024].\nIt is abundantly clear from the principles of law as laid down by the\nSupreme Court as noted above, that a technical plea of breach of\nprinciples of natural justice cannot be taken, unless a case of prejudice\nhas been made out, and if no case of prejudice is made out, certainly a\nplea of breach of principles of natura…

MORAJ GROUP HOSPOTALITIES INC,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2047/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. Pradip Kapasi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Moraj Group Hospitalities INC Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai Plot No. 57, Sector 17, Koperkhairne, Vs. Navi Mumbai – 400709 (PAN : AASFM1669B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri. Pradip Kapasi, CA Revenue : Shri. Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)- 53, Mumb…

Showing 1–20 of 47 · Page 1 of 3