AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

disallowance u/s 54B of the Act. However, the subject matter of present proceedings u/s 263 of the Act is different from the subject matter of appeals with CIT (A) In the provision of section 263 of the Act, it 6 has been mentioned that the powers of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 shall extend to such matters

M/S SUNIL CHETNDAS KATARIYA, HUF,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, , NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Sunil Chetandas Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Nashik. Katariya, 649, Sai Villa, Lam Road, Deolali Camp, Nashik- 422401. Pan : Aaths6634R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik [‘Pcit’] Dated 12.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Pcit Erred In Holding That The Asst. Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 In The Case Of The Assessee For A.Y.2011 - 12 Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Thereby

revision is sought to be made. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be termed “erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue”. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 (Bom.), the Hon’ble Delhi

VIVEK NATHURAM GAVHANE,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

disallow the depreciation at Rs.81,24,101/- claimed by the assessee alleging use of properties for business purposes. 4. In response to notice u/s.263 of the Act, assessee filed written submissions wherein it has been stated that the properties in question were rented for part of the year and thereafter they have been utilized for business purposes and therefore

DHARMAVEER SAMBHAJI NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Dharmaveer Sambhaji Nagari Pcit-3, Pune Sahakari Pat Maryadit Vs. A/P Manchar, Tal-Ambegaon, Dist. Pune – 410503 Pan: Aaaad5228N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandip Argade Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-01-2026

disallow the deduction u/s 80P of the Act to the extent of net interest income. 11. Relying on the following decisions he submitted that when the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view on an issue, the Ld.PCIT cannot assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act to revise

ANIL SHRICHAND SADHWANI,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2443/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anil Shrichand Sadhwani, V The Income Tax Officer, Chhatrapati Shivaji Hsg Soc, S Ward-2(1), Pune. Nashik Road, Jailroad, Nashik – 422101. Maharashtra. Pan: Annps1615D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 23.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Ctt(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs.6,15,600 By Taxing The Appellant'S Share In Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.2,52,31,000 & Actual Consideration Of Rs 2,40,00,000 Received On Sale Of Immovable Property As Income U/S 50C Without

revision order u/s 263, is outside the scope of the present appeal arising against the asst, order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 which is impugned before Hon'ble Bench. Copy of the original Asst. Order u/s 143(3) dated 24.12.2017 is attached herewith as Annexure 6. 5] It is further clarified that the total cost of construction of the bunglow

M/S. KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT - 4, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

disallowance is called for, and therefore, no prejudice is caused to the Revenue. It was accordingly held that the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act on this issue are not warranted. 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P.) Ltd. reported in (2018) 99 taxmann.com

GOEL EISHA CAPITALS,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

disallow the same during the\nassessment proceedings for the year under consideration.\n04. In view of the above, it is found that the no verification on the aforesaid issues\nhas been done in the assessment proceedings by the AO. As per explanation (2) to\nsection 263(1) of the Act an order without making inquiries or verification which\nshould have

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

disallowance of "Application of income" ought to be confined to alleged excessive/violative portion of the payments to specified persons. 7. Appellant craves leave to add/modify/delete/amend all/ any of the grounds of appeal. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(E) in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He submitted that

NIPRO INDIA CORPORATION P LTD ,SATARA vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowance under the head “Office expenses” and “Other miscellaneous expenses” to an extent of Rs.4,50,000/- and assessed loss at Rs.47,93,92,732/- (Rs.47,98,42,732/- - Rs.4,50,000/-) vide order dated 06-12-2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. On an examination of the said assessment record, the Pr. CIT in the revision proceedings

M/S GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowed in the latter Assessment Year 2020-21 under consideration. 9. The assessee craves leave to add, to modify to delete or to amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Assessee has also raised the following additional ground : “The impugned revision order passed u/s 263

UBS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO CREDIT SUISSE SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD),PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE - 1, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1407/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ubs Business Solutions (India) V The Principal Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Credit S. Commissioner Of Suisse Services (India) Pvt Income Tax, Ltd.), Pune-1. Cluster A, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, S.No.77, Ground To 5Th Floors In Wing 1, 3Rd To 5Th Floor In Wing 2, Kharadi Midc Knowledge Park, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabcu8718M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal - Ar Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 31.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144B

U/s 263 the order has to be erroneous as well as prejudicial. If both the conditions 9 are not satisfied the order cannot be revised. Please refer Malabar ITA No.1224/PUN/2025 [A] Industrial Company Ltd vs. CIT 243 ITR 83(SC), CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bombay).” Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED , AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

revised return of income on 31.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.1,20,54,68,920/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs.122,32,40,620/- by making disallowance of Rs.1,05,69,000/- u/s 2 14A r.w.s. 8D of the IT Rules. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed an order

SHRISANT SAVTAMALI GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. PR. CIT - 1 , PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

u/s 263 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case, respected PCIT - Pune -1 erred passing the impugned Revision Order under section 263 without appreciating the fact that interest on the deposits made

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

u/s 143(3) of the Act, assessing total income at Rs.NIL. Further the Internal audit has raised objection in your case that your firm has taken loan amounting to Rs.45,00,000/- in cash from Fortune Developers. Therefore, you are hereby requested to submit your response in this regard along with documentary evidences if any to this office

PRABHAKAR MANJAJI THAKRE vs. PRINCIPOAL C.I.T.-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12

revision proceeding, the assessee could not show that the STDR with SBI was a long term specified asset within the meaning of sec. 54EC. The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to make the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s. 54EC with respect to such STDR with State Bank of India. 6. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12 PUNE, PUNE vs. JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, to the total income of Rs.1,54,81,910/- returned by the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 26.05.2023. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.4 of his appellate order observed that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12 PUNE, PUNE vs. JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, to the total income of Rs.1,54,81,910/- returned by the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 26.05.2023. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.4 of his appellate order observed that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12 PUNE, PUNE vs. JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act, to the total income of Rs.1,54,81,910/- returned by the assessee u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 26.05.2023. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.4 of his appellate order observed that

BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

revised by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. 14. In his second plank of argument, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that 263 proceedings were initiated at the behest of the Assessing Officer and not suo motu by the Ld. PCIT. Referring to various decisions he submitted that the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act initiated