DR. PRATAP PANDHIRANATH PATIL,PUNE vs. PCIT - 2, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. PCIT has failed to appreciate that for invoking Section 263, both conditions must be satisfied simultaneously: (i) The assessment order must be erroneous, and (ii) Such error must be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. Assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs. 14,85,000/-by invoking provisions of section 69A of Income Tax Act 1961.on the basis of declaration

SHIVAJI SOPAN GOTE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as follows : “That the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of real estate development and supply of construction materials under the proprietary concern "Harihareshwar Developers." 2 Shivaji Sopan Gote That the assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16 was completed under section 143(3) of the Income

JIVARAM MAGAJI CHAOUDHARY,PUNE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 7, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1392/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.4, Road No.5, Snehdeep Palace, Tingrenagar, Pune- 411032. Pan : Aalpc3973B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By Shri Uma Shankar Prasad : Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable

delay of 48 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and furnished his return of income on 28.02.2013 declaring total income of Rs.6,22,811/-. Later, the assessee also filed revised return on 22.11.2013 declaring total income at Rs.6,70,423/-. The assessment

ANAND DEVELOPERS,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SANGLI

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

section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, it has been held that, "sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part-promised. The true test is, what is the intention of the parties to the transaction. If the intention is that title should pass immediately, even though the consideration

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANGLI CIRCLE,, SANGLI vs. ANAND DEVELOPERS, SANGLI

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

section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, it has been held that, "sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part-promised. The true test is, what is the intention of the parties to the transaction. If the intention is that title should pass immediately, even though the consideration

JALINDER TATYASAHEB DESHMUKH,,BEED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2679/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Jalindertatyasaheb The Commissioner Of Income Deshmukh, Vs Tax, Aurangabad. Anusaya Construction Company, Vidyanagar Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed – 431515. Pan: Adwpd 6423 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Shivraj B Moray – Dr Date Of Hearing 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aurangabad For The A.Y.2009-10 Dated 24.03.2014.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit-Aurangabad Was Not Justified In Passing The Revisionary Order Under S. 263 Of The Act When The Original Assessment Order Passed By The A. 0. Cannot Be Branded As Erroneous As Well As Prejudicial To The Interests Of Revenue Since The Perusal Of The Said Assessment Reveals That The Full Investigation Was Made Calling For The Entire Information Needed For Framing The Assessment. The Revisionary Order Is Not Sustainable In Law. It Be Quashed.

condoning the delay. 5. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. At the time of hearing of the appeal, none appeared on behalf of the appellant assessee. ITA No.2679/PUN/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10 Shri JalinderTatyasaheb Deshmukh(A) 2.1 It is observed that on following occasions, none had appeared for hearing

ADESH TULSHIRAM MHATRE,DISTRICT RAIGAD vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

Section 270A, 271AAC and 272A(1)(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 3 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all notices relating to the income tax proceedings were issued solely through ITBA

RAJENDRA RAMESHLAL GUGALE,PUNE vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

delay in filing of the instant appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of land development and real estate broking. He filed his return of income on 28.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.8,08,880/-. A search action

BALASAHEB ARJUN MALAWADE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for both the AYs 2018-19\nand 2020-21 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

section 143(2)/142(1) of the Act were\nissued and served upon the assessee. The Ld. AO issued several notices of\nhearing to the assessee, however, these were not responded to, except one\nnotice issued on 09.09.2022 to which a part response was filed by the\nassessee. In the absence of any documentary evidence filed by the assessee

BALASAHEB ARJUN MALAWADE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for both the AYs 2018-19\nand 2020-21 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

section 143(2)/142(1) of the Act were\nissued and served upon the assessee. The Ld. AO issued several notices of\nhearing to the assessee, however, these were not responded to, except one\nnotice issued on 09.09.2022 to which a part response was filed by the\nassessee. In the absence of any documentary evidence filed by the assessee

KALIAPERUMAL SELVARAJ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

69C of the Act and unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act vide its order dated 25-03-2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi with a delay of 117 days. The assessee explained the reasons

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

delay of 03 days is condoned. 3. We find that the issues raised in all the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties, we proceed to hear all the appeals together and to pass a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 4. First, we shall take up appeal

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