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

2) of 2009. However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147. An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override it or render the substance and core nugatory. Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing

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

2) of 2009. However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147. An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override it or render the substance and core nugatory. Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing

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

2) of 2009. However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147. An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override it or render the substance and core nugatory. Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing

APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

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

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

148 of the Act. All the other notices u/s 142(1) and reminders sent to the assessee from time to time as well as show cause letter(s) remained uncomplied by the assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) therefore completed the assessment by making the total addition of 2 ITA No.1110/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 Rs.60,75,423/- u/s 144 r.w.s

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

2), "the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be applied accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section". What this implies is, in our view, clear. Even after a notice is issued under s. 148, if the ITO proposes to make a variation in the income returned pursuant to such notice which

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

2), "the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be applied accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section". What this implies is, in our view, clear. Even after a notice is issued under s. 148, if the ITO proposes to make a variation in the income returned pursuant to such notice which

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

2), "the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be applied accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section". What this implies is, in our view, clear. Even after a notice is issued under s. 148, if the ITO proposes to make a variation in the income returned pursuant to such notice which

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

2), "the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be applied accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section". What this implies is, in our view, clear. Even after a notice is issued under s. 148, if the ITO proposes to make a variation in the income returned pursuant to such notice which

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

2), "the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be applied accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section". What this implies is, in our view, clear. Even after a notice is issued under s. 148, if the ITO proposes to make a variation in the income returned pursuant to such notice which

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

2), "the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be applied accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under that sub-section". What this implies is, in our view, clear. Even after a notice is issued under s. 148, if the ITO proposes to make a variation in the income returned pursuant to such notice which

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

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

MR. VIJAY BAJIRAO BALWADKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2) PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

condone the delay of 345 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') it be held that the addition of Rs.22,68,500/- so made

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

2 of 20 Vardhaman Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Ltd. ITA No. 475/PUN/2020AY: 2011-12 witnessing the substantial cash deposits made by the assessee into its Saving Bank account [for short “SB A/c”] maintained with ‘Axis Bank’, and in the absence of return of income [for short “ITR”] on record, the Ld. AO, recording the reasons & after obtaining the approval, has initiated

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, 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