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

131(1)\nof the Act on 17/11/2017 is available. Thus, it seems that some of the documents /\ninformation which was shared with the earlier Assessing Officer and the basis on\nwhich the said Assessing Officer recorded the reasons for initiation of action\nunder section 147, were not available with the Assessing Officer who disposed of\nthe objections of the assessee

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

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 153D. the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148." We are in complete agreement

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section and a harmonious construction of the entire provision would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the word 'assess has been used in the context of abated proceedings and reassess has been used for completed assessment proceedings, which would not abate as they are not pending on the date of initiation of the search or making of requisition and which

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section and a harmonious construction of the entire provision would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the word 'assess has been used in the context of abated proceedings and reassess has been used for completed assessment proceedings, which would not abate as they are not pending on the date of initiation of the search or making of requisition and which

RAJDEEP BUILDCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section and a harmonious construction of the entire provision would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the word 'assess has been used in the context of abated proceedings and reassess has been used for completed assessment proceedings, which would not abate as they are not pending on the date of initiation of the search or making of requisition and which

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 notice under\nsection 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income-tax\nAct read with TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time\nbarred and liable to be set aside.”\n45. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case\nof Ashish Agarwal (supra

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be\npassed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-\nBA.\"\n11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of\nlaw that the approval under Section 153D

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be\npassed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-\nBA.\"\n11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of\nlaw that the approval under Section 153D

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. B. No Approval u/s 151 is obtained on the reasons recorded. C. The Approval alongwith proposal clearly shows that it was only proposal and there is no finding about the reason to believe. D. The appellant has discharged the burden u/s 68 by furnishing the supporting documents. E. There is no material to show

ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be\npassed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-\nBA.\"\n11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of\nlaw that the approval under Section 153D

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be\npassed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-\nBA.\"\n\n11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of\nlaw that the approval under Section 153D

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be\npassed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-\nBA.\"\n11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of\nlaw that the approval under Section 153D

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 40A(3) of the Act and unsecured loans taken from Akash Foods and Feeds for which Assessing Officer was satisfied with the reply filed by the assessee and re- assessment proceedings were concluded after making addition u/s.68 of the Act at ₹83,56,232 and disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act at ₹1,36,378. Assessed income

ANIL BABANLAL AGRAWAL,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

131 of the Act on 12.02.2013. The Assessing Officer thus, held that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee in reply, submitted that return of income earlier filed may be treated as filed under section

LATE SHRI BABANLAL B AGARWAL,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALGAON

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

131 of the Act on 12.02.2013. The Assessing Officer thus, held that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee in reply, submitted that return of income earlier filed may be treated as filed under section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHRI VASANTRAO LAXMAN KHANDGE,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1971/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07

131 of the Act on 12.02.2013. The Assessing Officer thus, held that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee in reply, submitted that return of income earlier filed may be treated as filed under section

V.L. KHANDGE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1971/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07

131 of the Act on 12.02.2013. The Assessing Officer thus, held that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee in reply, submitted that return of income earlier filed may be treated as filed under section

D.L. KHANDGE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1971/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07

131 of the Act on 12.02.2013. The Assessing Officer thus, held that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee in reply, submitted that return of income earlier filed may be treated as filed under section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHRI DATTATRAYA LAXMAN KHANDGE,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1971/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07

131 of the Act on 12.02.2013. The Assessing Officer thus, held that there was reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee in reply, submitted that return of income earlier filed may be treated as filed under section