BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: 24 IT(SS)A Nos. 10 to 16/PUN/2023 & ITA No.516/PUN/2023 “Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. MARSH FINCOM PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1342/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Aurangabad. Vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Gold Crest, Ns Road No.10, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan : Aabck0760B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Quashing Proceedings U/S. 153A In Respect Of Assessee Where The Assessee’S Case Was Covered Under Section 132 Of The Act Dated 20.08.2014. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Made

reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material collected during the search and other material which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as the undisclosed income.” In view of the binding nature of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High court, I hold that since original assessment

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: “Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before a Bench of three Judges in Central Board of Central

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: “Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before a Bench of three Judges in Central Board of Central

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: “Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before a Bench of three Judges in Central Board of Central

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: “Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before a Bench of three Judges in Central Board of Central

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: “Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before a Bench of three Judges in Central Board of Central

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: “Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before a Bench of three Judges in Central Board of Central

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: “Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before a Bench of three Judges in Central Board of Central

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: “Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before a Bench of three Judges in Central Board of Central

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: “Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before a Bench of three Judges in Central Board of Central

PRIYANVADA AMOL MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: “Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before a Bench of three Judges in Central Board of Central

PRIYANVADA AMOL MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: “Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before a Bench of three Judges in Central Board of Central

PRIYANVADA AMOL MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: “Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before a Bench of three Judges in Central Board of Central

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)

119 of the Act. Copy of e-proceedings acknowledgment demonstrating details filed by assessee in response to the notice are at page no.120 and 121 of the paper book. Assessee’s submission before the Assessing Officer is at page no.133 to 200 of the paper book. Ld.AR submitted that order u/s.153A r.w.s 143(3) was passed on 05.06.2022 with

ANANT KASHINATH KAKATKAR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2019-20

119(2)(b) of the Act to grant condonation for the delay in filing Form. Neither the AO during return processing nor I, the JCIT(Appeals) when finalizing the appeal, are empowered by the statute to condone appellant delayed filing of Form 3CFA Since the appellant has NOT filed form 3CFA within statutory limit, he is not eligible to claim

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

reassessment order as well as additions made therein may\nplease be quashed.\nITA Nos.13 to 17/PUN/2024\nM/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd.\n7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-\nAppeal as well as Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts, in\nsustaining/making the addition of Rs.8,96,41,183/- without\nappreciating the real

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order as well as additions made therein may please be quashed. M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal as well as Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts, in sustaining/making the addition of Rs. 8,96,41,183/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order as well as additions made therein may please be quashed. M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal as well as Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts, in sustaining/making the addition of Rs. 8,96,41,183/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction