M/S. SHI vs. HAKTI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,OSMANABADVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, NANDED

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shivshakti Shetkari Vs. Dcit, Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Circle-3, Limited, Nanded Washi Dist., Osmanabad. Pan : Aacts1082Q Appellant Respondent

condone the impugned delay of 835 days in filing appeal as neither intentional nor deliberate. 3. Next, comes the assessee‟s first and foremost legal issue challenging validity of the impugned reopening. A perusal of the assessment findings in assessment order dated 10.03.2014 at page 1 itself suggests that the impugned reopening had been initiated by the learned assessing authority

SHRI SHANTINATH BHAGWAN JAIN SHWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK SANGH,PUNE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

147(1) as they stood after the amendment of 1-4-1989 continue to hold the field. 18. In that view of the matter and for the reasons that we have indicated, we do not regard the decision of the Tribunal in the present case as being in error. The question of law shall, accordingly, stand answered against the revenue

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 assessment as an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of the 19 ITA.Nos.1693 & 1694/PUN/2019 & ITA.No.210/PUN/2021 M/s. Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., Latur, Maharashtra. revenue. We make it clear that the said re-assessment already has been quashed in preceding paragraph as not sustainable in law. That being the case, we invoke sublato fundamento cadit

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 assessment as an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of the 19 ITA.Nos.1693 & 1694/PUN/2019 & ITA.No.210/PUN/2021 M/s. Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., Latur, Maharashtra. revenue. We make it clear that the said re-assessment already has been quashed in preceding paragraph as not sustainable in law. That being the case, we invoke sublato fundamento cadit

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 assessment as an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of the 19 ITA.Nos.1693 & 1694/PUN/2019 & ITA.No.210/PUN/2021 M/s. Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., Latur, Maharashtra. revenue. We make it clear that the said re-assessment already has been quashed in preceding paragraph as not sustainable in law. That being the case, we invoke sublato fundamento cadit

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

delaying the process of claiming deduction under\nSection 80IA/IB of the Act. All this would indicate that Assessing\nOfficer had formed an opinion while passing the order dated 9 th\nMarch, 2005. This Court in Aroni Commercials Ltd. v/s. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income Tax 367 ITR 405 had occasion to consider\nsomewhat similar submission made by the Revenue and negatived

VARDHAMAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATH SANSTHA LTD,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 475/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Vardhaman Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd. Mahatma Gandhi Rd.,Vaijapur, Aurangabad–423701. . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 19/07/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 31/12/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5) Aurangabad [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2011-12. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 20

147 of the Act and assessed as such, determining the total tax liability accordingly. 4.5 On 31/01/2019, the appellant without any substantive ground preferred an appeal before FAA with PAN “AABCV4217E” standing as Company and subsequently by a written and well-reasoned application dt. 12/03/2019 requested for withdrawal thereof. On a panoramic consideration of facts stated and grounds raised

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

Section 283 of the Act are rightly invoked in this case. 5.2 Reliance can be placed on the decision in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Add CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 (1975) 90 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. South India Shipping Corp. Ltd. (1998) 147 CTR (Mad) 433 (1996) 233 ITR 546 (Mad). CIT V. M.M. Khambhatwala

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

delay is condoned and the appellant was given an opportunity during the course of appeal proceedings to furnish the sources of cash deposits. The appellant raised the issue of jurisdiction only in Additional Grounds of Appeal and not submitted any evidence in support of cash deposited. In view of the appeal is decided on merits. 6. Adjudication of Additional Grounds

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

delay is condoned and the appellant was given an opportunity during the course of appeal proceedings to furnish the sources of cash deposits. The appellant raised the issue of jurisdiction only in Additional Grounds of Appeal and not submitted any evidence in support of cash deposited. In view of the appeal is decided on merits. 6. Adjudication of Additional Grounds

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

delay is condoned and the appellant was given an opportunity during the course of appeal proceedings to furnish the sources of cash deposits. The appellant raised the issue of jurisdiction only in Additional Grounds of Appeal and not submitted any evidence in support of cash deposited. In view of the appeal is decided on merits. 6. Adjudication of Additional Grounds

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

delay is condoned and the appellant was given an opportunity during the course of appeal proceedings to furnish the sources of cash deposits. The appellant raised the issue of jurisdiction only in Additional Grounds of Appeal and not submitted any evidence in support of cash deposited. In view of the appeal is decided on merits. 6. Adjudication of Additional Grounds

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal, an empathetic humane view of the matter ought to have been adopted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits further erred in not appreciating and considering all the issues emanating from the order of the AO passed under section 147

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal, an empathetic humane view of the matter ought to have been adopted. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merits further erred in not appreciating and considering all the issues emanating from the order of the AO passed under section 147

KULDEEP MAKHIJA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(3), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is DISMISSED with aforestated cost

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Kuldeep Makhija C/O Ghanshyam Shivnani, P/4-903, Oxford Village Premiums, Kedari Nagar, Pune-411040 Pan: Alnpm7224Q. . . . . . . . Appellant

section 144 of the Act put assessee to a show-cause notice dt. 05/12/2019 [‘SCN’ hereinafter] as to why assessment in his case not be completed to the best of judgement on ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 18 Kuldeep Makhija Vs ITO ITA No. 0946/PUN/2024 AY: 2012-13 the basis of information vis-à-vis material available on record. When

PRASANNA SHRIKANT PATANKAR,SATARA vs. ITO WD NO - 04, SATARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1693/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prasanna Shrikant Patankar V The Income Tax Officer, No.35, Raviwar Peth, S. Ward-4, Satara. Azad Chowk, Karad, Satara – 415110. Maharashtra. Pan: Alypp1014A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025

section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2023. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.1693/PUN/2025 [A] “1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld.CIT (A), NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed

P.P. ENTERPRISES,,PANVEL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. Further, as required under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issue on merits. Otherwise, there is an addition of Rs.17,69,894/- made by the AO in this case on account of bogus purchases. 3. Before me, there is none to represent

M/S LORGAN LIFESTYLE LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD14(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

condone the delay of 84 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 24th May 2023, received by the Appellant and based on the facts

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

147 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the provisions contained in section 12A(b) were only directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “8. Coming to the first argument that Section 12A(b) is mandatory, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee relies on a judgment