PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

reassessment proceedings through qualified representative wherein written submissions were furnished by the 9 assessee and after considering the contentions of the assessee, the orders were passed by-parte wherein the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs.46,96,100/- as against the original assessed income u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act at Rs.14

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

revised.\n5.\nYou are hereby given an opportunity to file your submission, if any,\nthrough e-filing portal or email (pune.pcit1@incometax.gov.in) on or\nbefore 28/03/2024 which will be taken into account while finalizing the\nproceedings. Necessary documentary evidences, wherever required, may\nalso be submitted. Please note that in case your reply is not received by the\ngiven date, it shall

MAHATMA PHULE GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. PCIT-1, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

revised. The contents of the notice issued u/s 263 of the Act read as under: 3 4. However, despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. PCIT the assessee did not respond for which the Ld. PCIT decided the issue on the basis of material available on record. He noticed that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.61

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

u/s 263 of the Act in case the assessment order passed is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In order to invoke the power of revision, the above two conditions are required to be satisfied cumulatively. References in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial

SHRI UPASANI KANYAKUMARI SANSTHAN,RAHATA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

revision granted by section 263 to the learned Commissioner have four compartments. In the first place, the learned Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act. For calling of the record and examination, the learned Commissioner was not required to show any reason. It is a part of his administrative control to call

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

revised computation, therefore, he disallowed the additional claim of Rs.892 crores made by the assessee during the year on account of accrued interest on loan taken from Mumbai Port Trust / Kandla Port Trust which were not paid in earlier years and not debited in the Profit & Loss Account. He further disallowed the interest of Rs.157.34 crores actually paid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

revised computation, therefore, he disallowed the additional claim of Rs.892 crores made by the assessee during the year on account of accrued interest on loan taken from Mumbai Port Trust / Kandla Port Trust which were not paid in earlier years and not debited in the Profit & Loss Account. He further disallowed the interest of Rs.157.34 crores actually paid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

revised computation, therefore, he disallowed the additional claim of Rs.892 crores made by the assessee during the year on account of accrued interest on loan taken from Mumbai Port Trust / Kandla Port Trust which were not paid in earlier years and not debited in the Profit & Loss Account. He further disallowed the interest of Rs.157.34 crores actually paid

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

revised computation, therefore, he disallowed the additional claim of Rs.892 crores made by the assessee during the year on account of accrued interest on loan taken from Mumbai Port Trust / Kandla Port Trust which were not paid in earlier years and not debited in the Profit & Loss Account. He further disallowed the interest of Rs.157.34 crores actually paid

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

revised computation, therefore, he disallowed the additional claim of Rs.892 crores made by the assessee during the year on account of accrued interest on loan taken from Mumbai Port Trust / Kandla Port Trust which were not paid in earlier years and not debited in the Profit & Loss Account. He further disallowed the interest of Rs.157.34 crores actually paid

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

revised computation, therefore, he disallowed the additional claim of Rs.892 crores made by the assessee during the year on account of accrued interest on loan taken from Mumbai Port Trust / Kandla Port Trust which were not paid in earlier years and not debited in the Profit & Loss Account. He further disallowed the interest of Rs.157.34 crores actually paid

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

263 of the Act become nullity. 22. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find an identical issue had come up before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sejal Jewellery & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). In that case a search action was carried

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

263 of the Act, the assessee was obliged to declare the additional income in the Revised return of income filed on 30/09/2011, much before the issuing of the statutory notice by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s.148 of the P Act on 25/07/2012. Therefore, when the assessee had declared the due income for the year under consideration in the Revised return

SHAMKANT KESHAV KOTKAR (PROP. NANDAN BUILDERS),PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

revised return filed on 03.07.2018. The Assessment Order u/s.153A r.w.s 143(3) was passed on 05.06.2022. Minor addition of Rs.1,189/- with reference to interest on TDS has been made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 8. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)[Pr.CIT], Pune on perusal of the records, invoked jurisdiction u/s.263

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

reassessment,\nshould the law otherwise permit it, and if the circumstances justify it. We have\nquashed the impugned notices only because they were issued to a non- existing\ncompany or entity despite the respondents' knowledge of its non-existence. All\ncontentions in this regard are left open because we have not addressed them in\nthis order.\"\n30.\nThe various other

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

revision of income under section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 thereby making the order passed under section 263 bad in law and void ab initio and may kindly be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Principle Commissioner of Income Tax gravely erred in assuming the jurisdiction beyond

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

reassessment,\nshould the law otherwise permit it, and if the circumstances justify it. We have\nquashed the impugned notices only because they were issued to a non- existing\ncompany or entity despite the respondents' knowledge of its non-existence. All\ncontentions in this regard are left open because we have not addressed them in\nthis order.\"\n30.\nThe various other

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

reassessment,\nshould the law otherwise permit it, and if the circumstances justify it. We have\nquashed the impugned notices only because they were issued to a non- existing\ncompany or entity despite the respondents' knowledge of its non-existence. All\ncontentions in this regard are left open because we have not addressed them in\nthis order.\"\n30. The various other