SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

section 151 have not been complied with in this case and respectfully following the judgments of the Honorable courts, I am of the considered view that notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law and the reopening u/s 147 is not sustainable and liable to be quashed. Hence, the notice u/s. 148 issued by the AO and the consequent assessment

CHANDRAKANT VITHTHAL BHOPI,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 1 , PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

148 dated 31.03.2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 was issued on 12.04.2021. In respect of the assessee following information is available in the annual information report Information Code Information Description Value TDS-194A TDS Return - Other Interest Rs 2,60,05,088/- (Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

TDS Statement Interest other than interest on 11125 securities (Section 1944)\nTotal\nRs.36011125/-\n03. Inquiry by the AO:\nOn verification with the departmental websites of e-filing portal, ITBA and Insight, it is noted that the assessee has not filed any return of\n11\nITA No.540/PUN/2025 [A]\nincome for AY 2015-16 but has sold immovable property of Rs.36000000

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

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) and thereafter issued notice u/s 148 2 on 31.03.2021. The notice was duly served upon the registered e-mail of the assessee. However, no return of income in response to the said notice was filed. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notices

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

148 proceedings examined the allowability of interest expenditure and found that they were not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia) because the assessee has not deducted TDS as per provisions of section

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

148 proceedings examined the allowability of interest expenditure and found that they were not allowable u/s 40(a)(ia) because the assessee has not deducted TDS as per provisions of section

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

148. Subsequently, ld. Assessing Officer before expiry of four years from the end of the A.Y. 2011-12 issued notice 3 Vatsalabai Karbhari Deore u/s.148 of the Act on 18.02.2016 after recording following reasons : “1. On perusal of the Profit & Loss account, it is noticed that the assessee has debited vehicle loan interest of Rs.1,36,378/-. On going through

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS of Rs 80,000/- appeared in 26AS statement of appellant for the year. The AO noticed that no return of income has been filed by appellant for the year despite having Income from capital gain on sale of immovable property. The case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148. In response notice u/s 148, the appellant filed ROI with

OMKAR RAMCHANDRA VELHAL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Section 148 of the\nAct in respect of AY 2015-16 are liable to be set aside. It is so directed.\n5. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.\n6. Pending application also stands disposed of.\", Unquote.\n6.1 Similarly, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Neera\nGupta Vs. ITO WP(C) 17352/2024 vide order dated 17/12/2024

AZIZUDDIN LATIPHODDIN KAZI L/H OF DECEASED LATIPHODDIN AJIMODDIN KAZI,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, LATUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.835/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Azizuddin Latiphoddin Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Deceased Latiphoddin Vs Ward-4, Latur. Ajimoddin Kazi, . Block No.71, Kazi Nivas, Dastagir Galli, Tal. Ahmedpur, Latur – 413515. Pan: Aynpk5231E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P P Kulkarni – Ar Revenue By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/08/2023

TDS’. On the interplay between the Hon’ble Apex Court judgments in Ghanshyam (supra) & Bikram Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in para 4 found the: `issue to be squarely covered by the larger Bench judgment of the Apex court’ in Bikram Singh (supra). Then it noted in para 9 of the judgment that: “We have perused para

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

148 of the Act with the reasons to believe that the income to the extent of AYs. 2015-16 & 2016-17 Rs.60,76,654/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for AY 2015-16. Statutory notice(s) u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee from time to time. Since, the assessee failed

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

148 of the Act with the reasons to believe that the income to the extent of AYs. 2015-16 & 2016-17 Rs.60,76,654/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for AY 2015-16. Statutory notice(s) u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee from time to time. Since, the assessee failed

PASHANKAR AUTO WHEELS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. CIT(A) CIRCLE-4, PUNE

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

TDS statement – Rent (section 194-I) 4,50,000 2 3. He, therefore, passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 26.03.2022 after following due procedure. Since income to the tune of Rs.4,46,64,231/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148