PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

gains shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing 5 as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts namely:- (i) Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer (ii) The cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto. The assessee

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

revision by the Ld. PCIT is based on the internal audit objections for which a reply was also submitted by the assessee. He submitted that the reply filed to the audit objections has to be considered as part and parcel of record as per clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 263 and merely on basis of audit objection, proceedings

UJWAL FINE HOMES,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.491/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ujwal Fine Homes, V The Principal High Bliss, S No.23, Dhayri S Commissioner Of Income Narhe Road, Pune – 411041. Tax, Pune -3, Pune. Pan; Aabfu7293E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C.H.Naniwadekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3, Pune U/Sec.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 09.02.2024 For The A.Y.2018- 19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. In Issuing The Notice U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2018-19

Revision of order that is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue [Clause 56] The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Income-tax Act provides that if the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner considers that any order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous

LEKHAKOSH KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PR. CIT, PUNE-4, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

revision u/s 263 of the Act. 8. As seen from the Balance Sheet, the assessee has received deposits amounting to Rs. 59,709/-, Paid up capital at Rs. 2,61,27,640/-, reserve fund at Rs. 81,32,297/- as on 31.03.2017. Against the same, the assessee has advanced Rs. 1,85.17,879/- only to its members. Thus, around

RAJKAMAL STONE METAL WORKS,AMBEGAON KHURD, DIST. PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE

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

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

revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.62,70,540/-. Referring to the copy of the Balance Sheet placed at page 3 of the paper book

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

u/s 263 of the Act unless the order is erroneous. The relevant observations of Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Moreover the CIT in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act directed the Assessing Officer to redetermine the rebate allowable under Section 88E of the Act after holding that the same needs more careful examination

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

revised return of income filed by the assessee is valid in law. 58. Next, we proceed to deal with the reasoning of Assessing Officer that since the transaction of sale of shares was not reflected in the books of account, the loss arising on sale of such shares cannot be allowed as deduction. It is settled position of law that

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

revised return of income filed by the assessee is valid in law. 58. Next, we proceed to deal with the reasoning of Assessing Officer that since the transaction of sale of shares was not reflected in the books of account, the loss arising on sale of such shares cannot be allowed as deduction. It is settled position of law that

MR. GAURAV RAJENDRA MALU,JAYSINGPUR vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

revision order u/s 263 of the Act. 8. (a) Show Cause Notice dated 21-02-2024 u/s 263 of the 194-197 Act. (b) Submissions dated 28-02-2024 filed before the 198-201 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in response to the above notice. 6. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

u/s 54F of the income Tax Act on two residential properties amounting to Rs.55,02,100/- and Rs.50,00,000/- The provision of section 54F is as under: 54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of art assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital gain on additional consideration of Rs.52,56,200/- on account of compensation received on entering into registered sale deed. The Hon'ble Tribunal has held that provisions of section 50C are not applicable on the facts of the case. The ratio laid down by the above decision, supports the contention of the appellant.\n6.8 The next contention and conclusion

PROXIMA CREATIONS,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1041/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Proxima Creations, Vs. Pcit, Pune-2. Prop. -1, Business Centre, Level-1, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aakfp9790Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit, Pune-2 [Ld. Pcit’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Order Passed By The Ld. Principal Cit U/S 263 Is Not Tenable Either In Law Or In The Facts Of The Case As The Order Passed By The Ao U/S 144 Did Not Contain Any Error Which Was Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. Order Passed By The Additional Principal Cit U/S 263 Is Bad In Law Being Violative Of Principle Of Natural Justice. 3. The Ld. Principal Cit Has Erred In Holding That Two Different Sets Of Profit & Loss Accounts Were Prepared By The Assessee.

revision proceedings, concrete evidence came on record that not only confirmed the deficiencies in the assessment order but also pointed to manipulation on the part of the assessee, which are strong indicators of fudging of accounts and under assessment by the FAO. Therefore, I am convinced that the provisions of section 263 are squarely applicable to the facts of this

AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA GRAMSEVAKANCHI SAHAKAR PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

revision\norder, the Ld. PCIT opined that income earned by the assessee from\ninvestments in co-operative banks would come in the category of 'Income\nfrom other sources' taxable u/s 56 and would not qualify for deduction as\nbusiness income u/s 80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act. The Ld. PCIT concluded that\nthe Ld. FAO has passed the order

RAJUMAR PREMCHAND TULSANI,PUNE vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -5, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.136/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajkumar Premchand Tulsani, The Pr.Commissioner Of Sr.No.46/8, Bombay Pune V Income Tax-5, Pune. Road, Akurdi, Pune – 411038. S Pan: Aawpt 8002 B Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M.K.Kulkaani – Ar/Advocate Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Commissioner Of Income Tax. Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06/07/2023

u/s 263 is not according to law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and such circumstances and payment made towards the discharge of legal liability (Govt, liability) cannot be termed as order of the A.O. as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue to apply provisions of S. 263

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

revision powers of the CIT under Section 263 of\nthe (IT) Act. Accordingly, after considering the totality of facts & circumstances of\nthe case and for the detailed reasons discussed herein above, I hold that the\nassessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dtd. 28/12/2018 for AY 2011-12, passed by\nthe Assessing Officer as erroneous & prejudicial to the interest

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

revision powers of the CIT under Section 263 of\nthe (IT) Act. Accordingly, after considering the totality of facts & circumstances of\nthe case and for the detailed reasons discussed herein above, I hold that the\nassessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dtd. 28/12/2018 for AY 2011-12, passed by\nthe Assessing Officer as erroneous & prejudicial to the interest

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)

u/s 153A. The AO has not verified the issue of Cash Loan; hence the Assessment Order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. As per Explanation-2 of the Section 263, Assessment Order will be deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial if Pr.CIT is of the opinion that Assessment Order(AO) is passed without making any Inquiry

POKHARNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

revised return is filed.\nHowever, in the present case, since the claim was made in the original\nreturn itself, the said ruling has no application whatsoever.\nFurthermore, Goetze (India) Ltd. does not curtail the powers of\nappellate or revisional authorities, and certainly not where the factual\nclaim is already on record and considered