PRASANNA SADASHIV SHETE,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Prasanna Sadashiv Shete Dcit, Circle 10, Pune 56/8, D-Ii, Midc Shete Industries, Vs. Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 Pan: Adbps4462Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

section 27(3) of the Act is barred by limitation, it deserves to be rejected on this ground alone.” In Madhu Dadha vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Hon'ble Madras High Court in their decision dated 23.6.2009 in TC (A). No. 421 of 2009 while referring to the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.K. RAMACHANDRAN v. State

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

47,068/- and Rs.1,10,00,000/-, assessment year wise, respectively, had escaped assessment. He thereafter went on to frame the impugned re-assessments dated 30.12.2017, in both cases, inter alia, disallowing/adding interest amount of Rs.68.50 lakhs with brokerage/commission of Rs.3,42,500/- each therein which stand upheld in the CIT(A)’s very much elaborate discussions in issue

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

47,068/- and Rs.1,10,00,000/-, assessment year wise, respectively, had escaped assessment. He thereafter went on to frame the impugned re-assessments dated 30.12.2017, in both cases, inter alia, disallowing/adding interest amount of Rs.68.50 lakhs with brokerage/commission of Rs.3,42,500/- each therein which stand upheld in the CIT(A)’s very much elaborate discussions in issue

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

47,068/- and Rs.1,10,00,000/-, assessment year wise, respectively, had escaped assessment. He thereafter went on to frame the impugned re-assessments dated 30.12.2017, in both cases, inter alia, disallowing/adding interest amount of Rs.68.50 lakhs with brokerage/commission of Rs.3,42,500/- each therein which stand upheld in the CIT(A)’s very much elaborate discussions in issue

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

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

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

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

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

47,54,752/- which were far in excess of the investment made in A.N. Coffeeday. Therefore, the presumption in law arises that the investments were made out of non interest bearing funds and burden was on revenue to show that investments were made out of borrowed funds. The revenue has not discharged the aforesaid burden. Therefore

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay

SOPAN GAHINAJI LANKE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

section should not be levied. However, none appeared. The A.O therefore, found default in filing the returns without sufficient cause and hence referring to the provisions of sec. 272A(2)(k) of the Act has levied penalty of Rs. 56,800/- for delay of 568 days @ Rs. 100/- per day for first quarter and Rs. 47,600/- for delay