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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption

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

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

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption

ROYAL SWAN CHARITABLE MINORITY TRUST,NANDED vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NANDED

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

reassessment was pending before Ld. ITO (Exemption). The reference to the DVO was contrary to the provisions of the law as per provisions

ROYAL SWAN CHARITABLE MINORITY TRUST,NANDED vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NANDED

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

reassessment was pending before Ld. ITO (Exemption). The reference to the DVO was contrary to the provisions of the law as per provisions

ROYAL SWAN CHARITABLE MINORITY TRUST,NANDED vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NANDED

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all the three AYs 2012-13,

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

reassessment was pending before Ld. ITO (Exemption). The reference to the DVO was contrary to the provisions of the law as per provisions

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

reassessment proceedings and addition on merits. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee. 3. Shri Nikhil Pathak appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee in ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal has assailed reopening of assessment. The ld. AR submitted that in computation of income annexed to return of income, the assessee had declared exempt

KARANSINGH KACHRUSINGH KAKAS (HUF),,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

exemption u/s. 54B in respect of investment made in two parcels of agricultural land from sale of agricultural land. The 3 ITA No. 1714/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2009-10 Assessing Officer in reassessment

VIKAS MARUTI NALAWADE,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 737/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vikas Maruti Nalawade, Ito, Ward-1, Sangli Vikas Hitech Nursary, Sangli Islampur Road, Near Sootgirni Vs. Tung, Sangli-416301 Maharashtra Pan-Alppn6432M अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By: Shri Amit Bobde-Cit Date Of Hearing: 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-12-2025 आदीश /Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:- This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.03.2025 Which Is Arising Out Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 29.03.2022. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The 2 Assessment Order, Having Being Passed Without Following The Principles Of Natural Justice, As Narrated In The Statement Of Facts, The Same Is Bad In Law & Hence Needs To Be Quashed.

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee furnished return in compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act declaring total taxable income at Rs. 7,960/- and 3 also declared exempt

RAJA BASHUMIYA MANIYAR,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

exemption from payment of capital\ngains tax, I am of the view that the impugned reassessment order and\nnotices are contrary

SANGITA BALAJI WATTAMWAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked for the sources of the same. Taking resort to the exempt agricultural income, personal

GOURISHANKAR EDUCATION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1234 & 1235/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Gourishankar Education Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Society, Panchganga Apartment, Opp. Axis Bank, Radhika Road, Satara- 415001. Pan : Aaatg6668A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1234/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 For Adjudication.

Exemption, Pune and requested to confirm the same. 11. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee trust in its return of income has already disclosed interest income of Rs.14,55,213/-. But when the Assessing Officer passed the reassessment

GOURISHANKAR EDUCATION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1234 & 1235/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Gourishankar Education Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Society, Panchganga Apartment, Opp. Axis Bank, Radhika Road, Satara- 415001. Pan : Aaatg6668A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1234/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2013-14 For Adjudication.

Exemption, Pune and requested to confirm the same. 11. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee trust in its return of income has already disclosed interest income of Rs.14,55,213/-. But when the Assessing Officer passed the reassessment

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

exemption under Section 10(38). The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as unexplained money under Section 69A and added it to the income.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the reassessment

USHA K JOLLY CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION), , PUNE

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.174/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Usha K. Jolly Charitable Vs. Cit (Exemption), Pune. Trust, 23, Jolly Villa, Bund Garden Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaatu1384R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [‘The Cit (Exemption)’] Dated 30.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit (Exemptions) Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking The Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961, Since Issues

Exemption) could not have exercised the jurisdiction u/s 263 in respect of item, which could not have been disallowed in the reassessment