SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below: (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return 34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below: (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return 34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below: (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return 34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below:\n(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of\nan Assessing Officer-\n(a) where he has made a return [under sub-section (1) of\nsection 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139,\nafter the expiry of one month from the date on which

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

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

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below:\n(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of\nan Assessing Officer-\n(a) where he has made a return [under sub-section (1) of\nsection 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139,\nafter the expiry of one month from the date on which

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

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

u/s 154 of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07.02.2025 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee & remanded the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to recompute the book profit by observing as under :- “4.3 Findings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

u/s 154 of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07.02.2025 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee & remanded the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to recompute the book profit by observing as under :- “4.3 Findings

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

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

Penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income are initiated separately.\"\n5.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the\naddition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the\nerstwhile company High Technology Transmission System India Pvt. Ltd. in\nwhose name

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

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

Penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income are initiated separately.\"\n5.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the\naddition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the\nerstwhile company High Technology Transmission System India Pvt. Ltd. in\nwhose name

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

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

Penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income are initiated separately.\"\n5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the\naddition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the\nerstwhile company High Technology Transmission System India Pvt. Ltd. in\nwhose name

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

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

Penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income are initiated separately.\"\n5.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the\naddition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the\nerstwhile company High Technology Transmission System India Pvt. Ltd. in\nwhose name