SHRI 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

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

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 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, 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, 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANAND BHALCHANDRA KULKARNI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element. Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find