INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

reopening the assessment it is the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has taken unsecured loan from Sri Sachin Nahar in cash. However, no such unsecured loan has been received by the assessee in cash but all the loans were received through proper banking channel. The Assessing Officer in the order has accepted and satisfied that

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

Assessing Officer and the assessee furnished the details of TDS deducted by the assessee along with copies of TDS returns, proof of payment of challans, expenditure has been duly shown in the Tax Audit Report and also the assessee has made the total payment of interest to the registered NBFC which is also subjected to income tax provisions

SUNAND CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

reopened the assessment by recording reasons which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. A perusal of the assessment order shows that no such disallowance has been made by the Assessing Officer in the body of the order on account of bogus interest expenditure but the Assessing Officer has made addition on account of non deduction of TDS

SUNANDA CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

reopened the assessment by recording reasons which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. A perusal of the assessment order shows that no such disallowance has been made by the Assessing Officer in the body of the order on account of bogus interest expenditure but the Assessing Officer has made addition on account of non deduction of TDS

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

reopening of the completing assessment refer Raymond Woolens Mills Ltd. vs. ITO and Other 236 ITR 34 (SC) and Revathy C.P. Equipment Ltd. vs. DCIT AND ors. 241 ITR 856 (Mad). 4.3.4 In the interest of natural justice, the Assessing officer has given several opportunities of hearing have been provided to the appellant to submit explanation / evidence. In the present

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

reopening of the completing assessment refer Raymond Woolens Mills Ltd. vs. ITO and Other 236 ITR 34 (SC) and Revathy C.P. Equipment Ltd. vs. DCIT AND ors. 241 ITR 856 (Mad). 4.3.4 In the interest of natural justice, the Assessing officer has given several opportunities of hearing have been provided to the appellant to submit explanation / evidence. In the present

HUTATMA JAIWANTRAO PATIL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL & JUNIOR COLLEGE HIMAYATNAGAR,HIMAYAT NAGAR vs. CIT TDS NASHIK, NASHIK

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

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

assessing officer is not justified and rejected. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. 5.5 Notwithstanding the facts discussed in aforementioned paras, where it has been discussed that the appeals are liable to be dismissed due to technical ground, I will decide the appeal on merit also. Appellant has mainly raised grounds of appeal against

HUTATMA JAIWANTRAO PATIL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL & JUNIOR COLLEGE HIMAYATNAGAR,HIMAYAT NAGAR vs. CIT TDS NASHIK, NASHIK

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

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

assessing officer is not justified and rejected. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. 5.5 Notwithstanding the facts discussed in aforementioned paras, where it has been discussed that the appeals are liable to be dismissed due to technical ground, I will decide the appeal on merit also. Appellant has mainly raised grounds of appeal against

HUTATMA JAIWANTRAO PATIL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL & JUNIOR COLLEGE HIMAYATNAGAR,HIMAYAT NAGAR vs. CIT TDS NASHIK, NASHIK

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

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

assessing officer is not justified and rejected. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. 5.5 Notwithstanding the facts discussed in aforementioned paras, where it has been discussed that the appeals are liable to be dismissed due to technical ground, I will decide the appeal on merit also. Appellant has mainly raised grounds of appeal against

HUTATMA JAIWANTRAO PATIL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL & JUNIOR COLLEGE HIMAYATNAGAR,HIMAYAT NAGAR NANDED vs. ITO TDS, NANDED

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

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

assessing officer is not justified and rejected. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. 5.5 Notwithstanding the facts discussed in aforementioned paras, where it has been discussed that the appeals are liable to be dismissed due to technical ground, I will decide the appeal on merit also. Appellant has mainly raised grounds of appeal against

HUTATMA JAIWANTRAO PATIL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL & JUNIOR COLLEGE HIMAYATNAGAR,HIMAYAT NAGAR vs. CIT TDS NASHIK, NASHIK

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

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

assessing officer is not justified and rejected. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. 5.5 Notwithstanding the facts discussed in aforementioned paras, where it has been discussed that the appeals are liable to be dismissed due to technical ground, I will decide the appeal on merit also. Appellant has mainly raised grounds of appeal against

HUTATMA JAIWANTRAO PATIL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL & JUNIOR COLLEGE HIMAYATNAGAR,HIMAYATNAGAR NANDED vs. ITO TDS, NANDED

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

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

assessing officer is not justified and rejected. The appeal is therefore liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. 5.5 Notwithstanding the facts discussed in aforementioned paras, where it has been discussed that the appeals are liable to be dismissed due to technical ground, I will decide the appeal on merit also. Appellant has mainly raised grounds of appeal against

SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL),, NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

TDS on the such payments by the assessee. Hence there is escapement of income to the tune of Rs.69,28,014/- for A.Y. 2006-07.” 8. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the assessing authority had recorded similar reopening

PARVATI STEEL RE ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS of Rs.38,681/- was made. Similarly, on the basis of TCS statement uploaded, the Assessing Officer brought to tax an amount of Rs.60,01,813/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment on a total income of Rs.2,87,09,423/-. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity

MRINALINI JAYANT PURANIK,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20 Mrinalini Jayant Puranik Ito, Ward 2(2), Pune Flat 14, Khagol Coop Society, Vs. S.No.38/1, Panchavati, Pashan, Pune – 411008 Pan: Almpp5163E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

TDS 2 statement the assessee has received various income to the tune of Rs.2,63,15,529/-, the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons, issued notice to reopen

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act on\nthe ground that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act\nwhich tantamount to concealment of income and which came to light as a result of\ninformation gathered from DSIR. We find the Assessing Officer, rejecting the\nvarious explanations given by the assessee and observing that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act on\nthe ground that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act\nwhich tantamount to concealment of income and which came to light as a result of\ninformation gathered from DSIR. We find the Assessing Officer, rejecting the\nvarious explanations given by the assessee and observing that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act on\nthe ground that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act\nwhich tantamount to concealment of income and which came to light as a result of\ninformation gathered from DSIR. We find the Assessing Officer, rejecting the\nvarious explanations given by the assessee and observing that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act on\nthe ground that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act\nwhich tantamount to concealment of income and which came to light as a result of\ninformation gathered from DSIR. We find the Assessing Officer, rejecting the\nvarious explanations given by the assessee and observing that