VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

disallowance of non payment of MVAT and service tax under section.43B of the Act. The deduction claimed under Chapter VIA under section 80IB(10) in respect of housing project namely; KIrishna Regency at Kalyan was accepted amounting to ₹6,54,91,914/- but the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 115 JC of the Act and adjusted total income

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 were communited to the assessee after 11 months of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act although the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.338/Pun/2021 & 236/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18

153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received’. On an overview of the above sub-sections of section 144C, it is vivid that - the opportunity of hearing to the assessee is required to be given by the DRP before

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.338/Pun/2021 & 236/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18

153B, the assessment without providing any further opportunity of being heard to the assessee, within one month from the end of the month in which such direction is received’. On an overview of the above sub-sections of section 144C, it is vivid that - the opportunity of hearing to the assessee is required to be given by the DRP before

VISHWA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX ,,

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.596, 597 & 599/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nagpur आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Nashik

153B of the Act. 2. This bunch of appeals relating to the same assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, reference is being made to the facts and issues in ITA No.596/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2009-10. 3. The assessee

VISHWA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL),,

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.596, 597 & 599/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nagpur आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Nashik

153B of the Act. 2. This bunch of appeals relating to the same assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, reference is being made to the facts and issues in ITA No.596/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2009-10. 3. The assessee

VISHWA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL),,

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.596, 597 & 599/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nagpur आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Nashik

153B of the Act. 2. This bunch of appeals relating to the same assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, reference is being made to the facts and issues in ITA No.596/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2009-10. 3. The assessee

VISHWA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL),,

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.596, 597 & 599/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nagpur आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Nashik

153B of the Act. 2. This bunch of appeals relating to the same assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, reference is being made to the facts and issues in ITA No.596/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2009-10. 3. The assessee

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 13,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.128/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 153B, the assessment …’. Under such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and direct him to pass the final order in conformity with the direction of the DRP as extracted hereinabove. 3. The only other ground which survives in this appeal is against the disallowance

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

disallowances in assessment u/s 153A in the absence of any incriminating material and without appreciating the fact that original assessment made u/s 143(1)(a) which is completed on the date of initiation of search get abated. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the learned Assessing Officer erred in adding

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

disallowances in assessment u/s 153A in the absence of any incriminating material and without appreciating the fact that original assessment made u/s 143(1)(a) which is completed on the date of initiation of search get abated. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the learned Assessing Officer erred in adding

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

disallowances in assessment u/s 153A in the absence of any incriminating material and without appreciating the fact that original assessment made u/s 143(1)(a) which is completed on the date of initiation of search get abated. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the learned Assessing Officer erred in adding

M/S. NAMRATA DEVELOPERS FLORA CITY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

disallowance of claim for carry forward of losses by treating the assessee as not liable for tax audit in terms of the provisions of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in treating the return of income as belated return as the same was filed on 23.10.2007. 4. The appellant craves leave

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

153B was made on 30.11.2016. Since 4 years from the end of the relevant year has not expired in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above. (Refer paragraphs from 2 to Paragraph 6 above). It is pertinent to mention here that in this case an assessment was made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

153B was made on 30.11.2016. Since 4 years from the end of the relevant year has not expired in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above. (Refer paragraphs from 2 to Paragraph 6 above). It is pertinent to mention here that in this case an assessment was made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

153B was made on 30.11.2016. Since 4 years from the end of the relevant year has not expired in this case, the only requirement to initiate proceeding u/s147 is reason to believe which has been recorded above. (Refer paragraphs from 2 to Paragraph 6 above). It is pertinent to mention here that in this case an assessment was made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

153B of the Act on 30.11.2016 accepting the income returned. 4. Subsequently on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Nashik, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment as per provisions of section 147 of the Act by recording the following reasons: CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 5. He, therefore, issued notice

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

153B of the Act on 30.11.2016 accepting the income returned. 4. Subsequently on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Nashik, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment as per provisions of section 147 of the Act by recording the following reasons: CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 5. He, therefore, issued notice

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

153B of the Act on 30.11.2016 accepting the income returned. 4. Subsequently on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Nashik, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment as per provisions of section 147 of the Act by recording the following reasons: CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 5. He, therefore, issued notice