ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

reopened the assessment, the reasons of which are already reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. In the order passed u/s 143(3) / 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer made disallowance

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

reopening of the assessment. Since the re-assessment proceedings have been initiated on borrowed satisfaction and without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer, such re-assessment proceedings are invalid. Even on merit also, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee has filed bank statements reflecting the payments made for purchase

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed the same u/s 37 of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,22,86,304/-. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee submitted that the reasons for reopening

KENERSYS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reopening the assessment was merely based on change of opinion. The Assessing Officer in original assessment proceedings was made aware of investments made by assessee in mutual fund. The Assessing Officer after applying his mind did not make any disallowance

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

disallowed by the Assessing Officer meaning thereby the Assessing Officer has accepted the genuineness of the loan on which the interest has been paid. 11. Referring to the additional information forwarded by the DDIT (Inv), Kolkata, which is the basis for reopening

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

reopened the assessment to disallow the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, since reasons not having alleged / particularized any failure

RAGBIRSINGH MALIKSINGH RAJPAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

reopening of the assessment, the Court should verify whether the assessment order made earlier has expressly or by necessary implication expressed an opinion on a matter which is the basis of the alleged escapement of income that was taxable. Infact, in this case we find that the assessment orders passed in regular assessment proceedings do refer to examining the computation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. SOVEREIGN PHARMA PVT LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reopening the assessment reads as under: “The Scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of the above mentioned assessee was completed on 31.12.2008 by the ITO, Wd.6(4) with the assessed income of Rs.(-)3,49,61,949/-. On perusal of the case records, it is observed that the following amount should have been disallowed

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

Assessing Officer to disallow the exemption claimed, for breach of the requirement of section 54E of the Act. 7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons on which the notice for reopening

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

Assessing Officer to disallow the exemption claimed, for breach of the requirement of section 54E of the Act. 7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons on which the notice for reopening

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

Assessing Officer to disallow the exemption claimed, for breach of the requirement of section 54E of the Act. 7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons on which the notice for reopening

M/S. GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in assessment year 2010-11 is allowed and appeal of assessee in assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1807/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd., 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaacg6703F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

disallowed in the hands of assessee and income was computed at ₹ 1,42,39,620/-. The Assessing Officer received information from the office of Director General (Inv) Pune that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries and indulged in hawala transactions. The Assessing Officer thus, recorded reasons for reopening

M/S. GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in assessment year 2010-11 is allowed and appeal of assessee in assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1807/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd., 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaacg6703F Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

disallowed in the hands of assessee and income was computed at ₹ 1,42,39,620/-. The Assessing Officer received information from the office of Director General (Inv) Pune that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries and indulged in hawala transactions. The Assessing Officer thus, recorded reasons for reopening

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer in a speaking order rejected the objections raised by the assessee and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) / 147 wherein he disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer in a speaking order rejected the objections raised by the assessee and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) / 147 wherein he disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer in a speaking order rejected the objections raised by the assessee and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) / 147 wherein he disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer in a speaking order rejected the objections raised by the assessee and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) / 147 wherein he disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer in a speaking order rejected the objections raised by the assessee and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) / 147 wherein he disallowed