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

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

3) of I.T. Act,\nthe assessee informed the Assessing Officer that interest of ₹.124.02 crores\nas claimed in the computation of income on ground of interest expenses\nretained in inventory is deductible under provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of\nthe Act. It was further informed that the said amount of interest paid was in\nrespect of capital borrowed

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)

3) vide order dated 25.03.2013 without making any addition. The assessee went into first appeal against the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee preferred second appeal before the ITAT and the ITAT vide its order dated 11.09.2017 directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition. Considering the directions

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)

3) vide order dated 25.03.2013 without making any addition. The assessee went into first appeal against the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee preferred second appeal before the ITAT and the ITAT vide its order dated 11.09.2017 directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition. Considering the directions

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)

3) vide order dated 25.03.2013 without making any addition. The assessee went into first appeal against the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee preferred second appeal before the ITAT and the ITAT vide its order dated 11.09.2017 directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition. Considering the directions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

reassessment proceedings, finding that the AO had not applied his independent mind and that no fresh tangible material was available. The original assessment had already considered the transaction.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "10(38)", "143(3)", "153A", "148", "147", "151", "69C", "68", "132", "133(6)", "131

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July 2014. The Assessing Officer ("AO") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July 2014. The Assessing Officer ("AO") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July 2014. The Assessing Officer ("AO") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July 2014. The Assessing Officer ("AO") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July 2014. The Assessing Officer ("AO") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July 2014. The Assessing Officer ("AO") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

section 148 for same transaction could not be issued as there was no fresh tangible material. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “3. The Petitioner had filed her return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28th July 2014. The Assessing Officer ("AO") had passed an order u/s 143 (3

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

reassessment is invalid merely because no addition was made on the original reason is devoid of merit. Therefore, this ground of appeal may be rejected.” 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions relied on by both the sides. Through Ground No.1, assessee has raised legal issue challenging

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

reassessment is invalid merely because no addition was made on the original reason is devoid of merit. Therefore, this ground of appeal may be rejected.” 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions relied on by both the sides. Through Ground No.1, assessee has raised legal issue challenging

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

reassessment is invalid merely because no addition was made on the original reason is devoid of merit. Therefore, this ground of appeal may be rejected.” 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions relied on by both the sides. Through Ground No.1, assessee has raised legal issue challenging

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

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

reassessment is invalid merely because no\naddition was made on the original reason is devoid of merit.\nTherefore, this ground of appeal may be rejected.”\n11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the\nrecord placed before us and carefully gone through the\ndecisions relied on by both the sides. Through Ground No.1,\nassessee has raised legal issue challenging

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

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

reassessment is invalid merely because no\naddition was made on the original reason is devoid of merit.\nTherefore, this ground of appeal may be rejected.”\n11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the\nrecord placed before us and carefully gone through the\ndecisions relied on by both the sides. Through Ground No.1,\nassessee has raised legal issue challenging