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 of the Act. The relevant findings and observations of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below : “6. Findings & Decision 6.1. I have carefully gone through the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s.143(3), appellate order of CIT(A)-2, Pune, order of Hon‟ble ITAT, Pune, written submissions of the assessee and the documents furnished. 6.2. During the appellate

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

section 151(ii) of the Act, such re- assessment proceedings not being in accordance with law, have to be quashed. 15. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly submitted that the approval has given properly by the PCIT. 16. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer

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

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

section 151 of the Act. This is for your kind information.” 3. Accordingly statutory notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2021. The assessee in response to the same filed the return of income on 07.04.2021 declaring total income at Rs.2,59,310/- which was the income returned earlier. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked

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

section 151 of the Act. This is for your kind information.” 3. Accordingly statutory notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2021. The assessee in response to the same filed the return of income on 07.04.2021 declaring total income at Rs.2,59,310/- which was the income returned earlier. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked

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

KESARINATH RAM GAIKWAD,RAIGAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 151A of the Act and notification dated 29th March, 2022 [Notification No.18/2022/F. No.370142/16/2022-TPL. 2. Because, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire reassessment proceedings were void ab initio since the approval for reopening was obtained by the Pr. CIT, Thane instead of Pr.CCIT as provided u/s 151(ii) of the Act. 3. Because

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

151 of the new\nregime. Once the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) is read with Taxation\nand other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act,\n2020, then all the notices issued between April 1, 2021 and June 30,\n2021 pertaining to the assessment years 2013-2014. 2014-2015, 2015-\n2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will

VINEET TIWARI,BENGALURU vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against Credit Card bills Total 72,44,455/- 3. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened the assessment and accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

VINEET TIWARI,BANGALORE vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against Credit Card bills Total 72,44,455/- 3. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened the assessment and accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

SHRIPATRAO DADA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, KOLHAPUR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

151/- on which TDS was required to be made while making the payment or crediting the same in respect of payees account. That on verification, it was noticed that the assessee bank had failed to deduct TDS on this pigmy commission of Rs. 2,21,022/-. The ld. A.O invoked section

SHAMKANT KESHAV KOTKAR (PROP. NANDAN BUILDERS),PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

TDS has been made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 8. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)[Pr.CIT], Pune on perusal of the records, invoked jurisdiction u/s.263 of the 9 ITA No.1358/PUN/2025 [A] Act. The Pr.CIT issued Show cause notice to the Assessee dated 30.05.2024 u/s.263 of the Act, which is reproduced here as under

SAMADHAN KRUSHNA KATEKAR,RAIGAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, RAIGAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Samadhan Krushna Katekar Vs. National 214, Narmada Krishna Niwas Faceless Dhutum, Jasai Uran – 400702 Assessment Maharashtra Centre Pan : Azrpk4713E Appellant Respondent

151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon‟ble High Court, vide its judgment dated 14.01.2014, decided this issue in favour

KUSUM JAYRAM THAKUR,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon’ble High Court, vide its judgment dated 14.01.2014, decided this issue in favour

SHRIHARI HANMANT NAVRANGE,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, LATUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon’ble High Court, vide its judgment dated 14.01.2014, decided this issue in favour

RAM LAXMANRAO MITKARI,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, LATUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory 9 ITA.No.574/PUN/2020 Sh Ram Laxmanrao Mitkari, Latur. amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon’ble High Court, vide its judgment

SAYYAD ATIK ALI IIAHI BAKSH,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Court, vide its judgment dated ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 Basweshwar Mallikarjun Bidwe 14.01.2014, decided

SAYYAD RAFIQ ALI IIAHI BAKSH,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Court, vide its judgment dated ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 Basweshwar Mallikarjun Bidwe 14.01.2014, decided

SAYYAD MAKSOOD ALI IIAHI BAKSH,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godarasl.

151 (SC) holding that interest under Section 28 of the 1894 Act was a revenue receipt and is taxable. After considering all the available relevant material including the judgment in Ghanshyam (HUF) (Supra) and also the statutory amendments carried out w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11, the Hon'ble High Court, vide its judgment dated ITA NO.1012/PUN/2017 Basweshwar Mallikarjun Bidwe 14.01.2014, decided