JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Search and seizure action was carried out against the assessee on 09.12.2009. While travelling from Pune to Delhi by air, the assessee was found to be in possession of cash of Rs.1,60,76,800/-. The assessee was searched by the Investigation Wing under section

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Search and seizure action was carried out against the assessee on 09.12.2009. While travelling from Pune to Delhi by air, the assessee was found to be in possession of cash of Rs.1,60,76,800/-. The assessee was searched by the Investigation Wing under section

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Search and seizure action was carried out against the assessee on 09.12.2009. While travelling from Pune to Delhi by air, the assessee was found to be in possession of cash of Rs.1,60,76,800/-. The assessee was searched by the Investigation Wing under section

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Search and seizure action was carried out against the assessee on 09.12.2009. While travelling from Pune to Delhi by air, the assessee was found to be in possession of cash of Rs.1,60,76,800/-. The assessee was searched by the Investigation Wing under section

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 1324, as the case may be, shall abate." What is clear from this is that Section 153A

ANANT MATE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1674 To 1678/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2008-09 & 2010-11

reassessment proceeding u/s 153A. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in considering the original return filed before search for levy of penalty abated or non-est. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in holding that inadvertent mistakes can only

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

c) Clause 12(d) 1 Sandvik Asia Limited Receipt for IT 8,072,286 8,072,286 Refer Note 6 Mumbai – Pune support to Appendix D Road, Dapodi, services Pune - 411012 10. The Notes to this effect was also given in Form No.3CEB. The original assessment in the case was completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

c) Clause 12(d) 1 Sandvik Asia Limited Receipt for IT 8,072,286 8,072,286 Refer Note 6 Mumbai – Pune support to Appendix D Road, Dapodi, services Pune - 411012 10. The Notes to this effect was also given in Form No.3CEB. The original assessment in the case was completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. SECO TOOLS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objections of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

c) Clause 12(b) 12(d) 1 Sandvik Asia Receipt for 8,072,286 8,072,28 Refer Note Limited IT support 6 6 to Mumbai – Pune services Appendix D Road, Dapodi, Pune - 411012 10. The Notes to this effect was also given in Form No.3CEB. The original assessment in the case was completed by issue of intimation under section

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

1) The Ld. AO has failed to issue notice u/sec 153C of the Act and has erroneously invoked section 147, the impugned assessment order passed u/sec 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is bad in law, void ab initio, and without jurisdiction. The same deserves to be annulled. 2) The reassessment proceedings initiated u/sec 147 are invalid as the conditions precedent

SMT. VAISHALI TUSHAR JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

13. Coming to the date of initiation of re-assessment proceedings, he pointed out that the date mentioned in assessment order of 29.03.2012 was a typographical error. In this regard, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue filed Paper Book and pointed out that in the case of assessee for assessment year 2005-06, reasons were recorded

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

13. Coming to the date of initiation of re-assessment proceedings, he pointed out that the date mentioned in assessment order of 29.03.2012 was a typographical error. In this regard, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue filed Paper Book and pointed out that in the case of assessee for assessment year 2005-06, reasons were recorded

TUSHAR R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

13. Coming to the date of initiation of re-assessment proceedings, he pointed out that the date mentioned in assessment order of 29.03.2012 was a typographical error. In this regard, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue filed Paper Book and pointed out that in the case of assessee for assessment year 2005-06, reasons were recorded

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

13. Coming to the date of initiation of re-assessment proceedings, he pointed out that the date mentioned in assessment order of 29.03.2012 was a typographical error. In this regard, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue filed Paper Book and pointed out that in the case of assessee for assessment year 2005-06, reasons were recorded

TUSHAR R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

13. Coming to the date of initiation of re-assessment proceedings, he pointed out that the date mentioned in assessment order of 29.03.2012 was a typographical error. In this regard, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue filed Paper Book and pointed out that in the case of assessee for assessment year 2005-06, reasons were recorded

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

13. Coming to the date of initiation of re-assessment proceedings, he pointed out that the date mentioned in assessment order of 29.03.2012 was a typographical error. In this regard, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue filed Paper Book and pointed out that in the case of assessee for assessment year 2005-06, reasons were recorded

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

13. Coming to the date of initiation of re-assessment proceedings, he pointed out that the date mentioned in assessment order of 29.03.2012 was a typographical error. In this regard, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue filed Paper Book and pointed out that in the case of assessee for assessment year 2005-06, reasons were recorded

SMT. VAISHALI TUSHAR JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

13. Coming to the date of initiation of re-assessment proceedings, he pointed out that the date mentioned in assessment order of 29.03.2012 was a typographical error. In this regard, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue filed Paper Book and pointed out that in the case of assessee for assessment year 2005-06, reasons were recorded