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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE PANVEL vs. OUTABOX MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLP, GHATKOPAR MUMBAI

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

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

TDS has been deducted. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC being contrary to the facts, should be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. 13 18. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12 PUNE, PUNE vs. JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PUNE

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

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

148 of the Act. However, in response to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee furnished its reply on 19.01.2023 submitting that the assessee is eligible for AYs. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act relying on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12 PUNE, PUNE vs. JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PUNE

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

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

148 of the Act. However, in response to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee furnished its reply on 19.01.2023 submitting that the assessee is eligible for AYs. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act relying on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12 PUNE, PUNE vs. JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PUNE

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

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

148 of the Act. However, in response to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee furnished its reply on 19.01.2023 submitting that the assessee is eligible for AYs. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act relying on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier year

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

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

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

2), Pune (Jurisdictional Assessing Officer or JAO) issued a notice under section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the AY 2015-16 (Notice No-ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2021-22/1042209284(1)), requesting for certain details from the appellant, in connection to the information obtained by the JAO from the Insight Portal. The information mentioned that the appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. PAN INTERNATIONAL, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.175/Pun/2020 & Co No. 23/Pun/2022 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Pan International, 347, Afl House, Off Dhole Patil Rd, Behind Hotel Meru, Pune – 411 001 . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Pan: Aabfp4234F & Cross Objector द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sharad Vaze Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Revenue Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 06/11/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Quashing The Order Of Assessment Dt. 10/03/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Pune[For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2008-09 On Technical-Cum-Legal Ground.

TDS”] from the expense claimed. In response thereto the assessee filed a written its submission to treat revised ITR filed on 06/03/2009 as ITR in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Considering the same the Ld. AO made an addition of ₹69,60,093/- by disallowing certain expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction

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

2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In this case four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 has been obtained separately from

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

2 to section 147 are applicable to facts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be a case where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In this case four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice u/s 148 has been obtained separately from

VILAS KISAN PATIL,URAN vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, ITD, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2178/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vilas Kisan Patin, V The Assessing Officer, House No.82, Panje, S Assessment Unit, Itd, Uran,Tal.Panvel, Panvel. Dist-Raigad, Maharashtra – 400702. Pan: Ayipp1671N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 29.08.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,92,72,028/- Made By Ld. Ao By Relying Upon The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viii) R.W.S 57(Iv) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The I.T.Act, 1961, Not Appreciating That The Said Amount Was Interest Granted U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Thus Bore The Character Of Enhanced Compensation On Acquisition Of Agricultural Land Situated At Village Panje, Tal.Uran, Dist. Raigd, Maharashtra & Was Therefore Exempt From Tax & The Addition Is Required To Be Deleted. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Later, Amend And/Or Vary The Grounds Of The Appeal At Any Time Before The Decision Of The Appeal.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. Ld.Ar For The Assessee Filed A Paper Book Containing 54 Pages. Ld.Ar Filed A Written Submission. Ld.Ar Submitted That Assessee Had Received Rs.3,85,44,057/- As Interest Under Section 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act. Ld.Ar Submitted That Said Interest Is Not Taxable As Held By The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court. Ld.Ar Filed Copy Of The Judgment. Ld.Ar Also Relied On The Following

148 of the Act. Assessee filed Return of Income for A.Y.2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.1,62,960/-. During the assessment proceedings, assessee submitted that land measuring 12,350 sq. Mtrs. Located at Village Panje, Tal Uran, Dist Raigad, Maharashtra was compulsorily acquired in 1986 vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 25/11/1986. The said