VLIFE SCIENCES TECHNOLOGIES P LTD (SINCE MERGED WITH NOVALEAD PHARMA P LTD ),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09 Vlife Sciences Technologies Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income (Since Merged With Novalead Tax, Circle-(1), Pune. Pharma P. Ltd.,) 3Rd Floor, Anahat, Plot No.5, Ram Indu Park, Baner Road, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aabcv 5959 N Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B.D.Bhide – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 23.12.2021 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, Dated 28.02.2014 For A.Y.2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By An Order Passed By The Id. Cit(A) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfaq Hereinafter Referred For Short As ‘Id. Cit(A), U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 23Rd December, Vlife Sciences Technologies Pvt. Ltd., [A]

reassessment records in-spite of repeated requests filed by the appellant which are acknowledged by the lower assessing authorities including the jurisdictional Pr. CIT. vi. Said order was passed by ignoring CBDT’s instruction/ LETTER F.NO.DGIT (VIG.)/HQ/SI/APPEALS/2017-18/9959 because of which, there was inordinate delay while passing an order U/Sec.250 beyond 15 days from the date of last hearing

HIRSCHVOGEL COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

carried forward at Rs.6,04,46,280/-. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC, who deleted the addition. On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal vide ITA No.2285/PUN/2017, order dated 29.06.2021 restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “7. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

carried forward of Rs.1,41,25,06,638 for AY 2021-22 which is clearly evident from the Schedule MATC of the ITR’s of both the AYs. The MAT credit was brought forward by the assessee for AY 2022-23 lower by Rs.1,86,60,746 (Rs.1,41,25,06,638 - Rs.1,39,38,45,890) after adjusting

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. 11. The assessees case would fall only in clause (g) of Section 270A(2) of the Act as the ultimate assessment had the effect of reducing the loss retuned by the assessee. It was further pointed out that under reporting of income has got certain exceptions

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

carrying out the reassessment proceedings has been challenged by the assessee on the ground that the reasons for which the reassessment proceedings have been initiated are on the issues which already stood examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of first round of assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act and there being no new tangible material found against

SHAKIL SHAKUR BIJAPURE,SATARA vs. DCIT CIRCLE , SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

forward, therefore Learned Assessing Officer action of treating the entire interest paid as income of assesse is incorrect. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law a learned Assessing Officer erred making addition of Rs. 72,16,49,949 on account of declaration made under IDS 2016, especially in view of fact that declaration

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

forward the said material to the AO of the other person exercising jurisdiction in respect of the other person.” It is to submit that further jurisdictional conditions as follows are required to be fulfilled : (d) the AO of the non-searched person being satisfied that the material information received has a bearing on the determination of the total income

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE vs. ZEAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessed has no effect on reducing loss or conversion of loss into income. In Trust's case, there is no concept of loss and deficit is not/adjustable to subsequent years" As can be seen from the above, for levy of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act the assessed income should be greater than the processed income

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment u/s 147. The learned CITA failed to consider the submissions made against the aforesaid addition and failed to appreciate that- 4.1 The appellant had accumulated and capitalised the expenses incurred on tooling and dies at the behest and on behalf of the Customers of Rs.6,00,43,068/- under Capital Work in Progress (CWIP) in the General Ledger

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment u/s 147. The learned CITA failed to consider the submissions made against the aforesaid addition and failed to appreciate that- 4.1 The appellant had accumulated and capitalised the expenses incurred on tooling and dies at the behest and on behalf of the Customers of Rs.6,00,43,068/- under Capital Work in Progress (CWIP) in the General Ledger

DINDAYAL MAGASVARGIYA SAHAKARI SOOT GIRNI LTD ,WAGHWADI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SANGLI., NISHANT COLONY

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2325/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dindayal Magasvargiya Vs. Acit, Circle Sangli, Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., Sangli. At Waghwadi, Post Kameri, Tal. Walwa, Sangli- 415403. Pan : Aaaad0254E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri R. Y. Balawade Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 For Ay 2013-14, Being The Year Beyond 4 Years & For Which Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Has Already Been Passed, Thereby

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for AY 2013-14 by recording the reason to believe which is based on audit objection. We submit that the reason based on such borrowed satisfaction cannot be the basis of reopening the concluded assessment. Therefore, entire proceedings are void ab initio. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds on the facts and in the circumstances

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

loss of revenue and the penalty under the said provision was a civil liability. The Supreme Court further held that willful concealment was not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in matter of prosecutions under Section 276-C of the Act. 5 ITA No.759/PUN/2024, AY 2010-11 6. In the pertaining facts and circumstances

R B DIAMOND HOUSE,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-1, RANGE -25, CIRCLE -1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

carried forward in the\nreturn of Income filed for AY 2016-17 which was available on the\nrecord and produced before the authorities i.e. income tax return filed\nfor the year under consideration. Ground No.\n8: Misapplication of Legal Precedents\n8.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nleamed Commissioner of Income

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

forward losses on amalgamating company on amalgamation with assessee was not in order, reopening of assessment on second thought on same audit objection was not permissible while exercising powers under section 147 read with section 148. 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership

ADESH BHUJANGRAO NAGAWADE,SHRIGONDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated herein above

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.71/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018

Loss Account are not the auction purchased during the year but is the amount apportioned based upon the sales and that this practice is consistently followed by the assessee in past and future. Therefore, the Tax collected at source cannot be taken as a basis for calculating the purchase to be recorded in the books of account. 5 Adesh Bhujangrao

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

loss account of Viraj Estate is attached herewith as Annexure-6. (3) Vasanti Shankar had entered into notarized agreement to sale with Rathi Estates on 27/01/2001 for consideration of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- (Annexure-B) and had earned gross profit of Rs.90,00,000/-. Copy of notarized agreement between Vasanti Shankar & Rathi Estates is attached herewith as Annexure

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return. The taking of such notice must be consistent with the provisions of the applicable law. The act of taking notice cannot be at the arbitrary whim or caprice of the Assessing Officer and must be based on a reasonable foundation. The sufficiency of the evidence or material is not open to scrutiny

NARENDRA KACHRULAL ABAD,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.866/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Narendra Kachrulal Abad, V The Income Tax Officer, Abad House, Nal Galli, S Ward-1, Jalna. Kadrabad, Jalna – 431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Acspa9531C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Aurangabadpassed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2009-10 Dated 30.03.2019, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 03.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal :

reassessment, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also could not do. (ii) The enhancement has been made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on assumption of incorrect facts. Rs.29,12,602/- is the net loss computed under the head business and profession. It is not the accommodation loss in future trading of shares that has been intended

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

forward losses. 3. That the order dated 15.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in passing the appellate order without providing an opportunity of being heard