SHANKAR NAGAPPA JADAGOUDA,KOLHAPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

reopening the assessment does not contain a reference to a particular issue with reference to which income has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess

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

assessment can be reopened under section 147. 27. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia reported in (2013) 352 ITR 493 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that post search reassessment

ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

reopening of assessment on the\nground that the assessment could have been only made u/s 153C and not u/s 147 of\nthe Act, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court accepted the contention of the petitioner\nand quashed the re-assessment proceedings by observing as under:\n“12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

reopening of assessment, though repeatedly asked by 9 assessee, were furnished only after completion of assessment, reassessment order could not be upheld

NAVJYOTI FARMING PRIVATE LIMITED,BELAPUR vs. ITO, WARD -3 , PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

reopening of assessment was not assessed or reassessed, it 6 would not be open to Assessing Officer to independently assess

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

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

reopen.\nWe must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to\nreview and power to re-assess. The Assessing Officer has no power to\nreview, he has the power to reassess

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

reopening the assessment and the time limit for completion of regular assessment have been done away with. Thus, assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under section 153A has been made simple and easy. A perusal of section 153A shows that it starts with a non obstante clause relating to the normal assessment procedure which is covered by sections

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

reopening of Assessment. 5.6 A recent authoritative opinion on the validity of reassessment proceedings is Full Bench decision of the Delhi

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

assessment, reassessment was not justified. 14. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. G and G Pharma India Ltd., [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Del.), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that prior to the reopening

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

reopened. The only variation is the section under which the addition has been made, and such a change in the section does not invalidate the reassessment proceedings. 2.2 In the case of Lark Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that where the reassessment order did not make any addition on the issue for which the Assessing

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

reopened. The only variation is the section under which the addition has been made, and such a change in the section does not invalidate the reassessment proceedings. 2.2 In the case of Lark Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that where the reassessment order did not make any addition on the issue for which the Assessing

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

reopened. The only variation is the section under which the addition has been made, and such a change in the section does not invalidate the reassessment proceedings. 2.2 In the case of Lark Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that where the reassessment order did not make any addition on the issue for which the Assessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

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

reopening of assessment. Making the reassessment and reopening of assessment are two different things. 8. When the process of reopening

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

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

reopening of assessment. Making the reassessment and reopening of assessment are two different things. 8. When the process of reopening

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

reopening notice and consequent order were to be quashed. 20. We find the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ICICI Bank (2012) 349 ITR 482 (Bom) has held that the Assessing Officer having allowed assessee’s claim under section 36(1)(viii) in respect of fund based income, could not initiate reassessment

SHATRUNJAY PARKS AND RESORTS P LTD., ,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL, KOLHAPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

assessment was not reopened on that basis. The assessee filed an appeal 8 I.T..A.No.441/PUN./2022 against these additions. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions of Rs. 31 lac which was the basis for reopening reassessment

NANDKUMAR NAMDEORAO DIWATE,KOLHAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1161/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nandkumar Namdeorao Diwate, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), 492, C-Ward, Kolhapur Opp. Main Rajaram Highschool, Juna Rajwada, Karveer, Kolhapur, Maharashtra-416001 Pan : Aeqpd 1603L Appellant Respondent

reopening the assessment. The corrective exercise embarked upon by "Parliament in the form of Explanation 3 consequently provides that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

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

reassessment proceedings and deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had reopened the case for AY 2014-15 and AY 2016-17, disallowing

M/S LORGAN LIFESTYLE LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD14(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

reopening the assessment. The corrective exercise embarked upon by Parliament in the form of Explanation 3 consequently provides that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess