BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

133 (Pune - Trib.) [26-12-2024] 5 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited 6. Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar Vs. (ITO ITA Nos. 2131 & 2132/PUN/2024) [18-02-2025] 7. Schneider Electric Southeast Asia (11Q) Pte. Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 145 taxmann.com 665 (Delhi HC) [28-03-2022) 6. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order

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

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

133(6) letters 1 Nico Securities Pvt. Ltd., 21/11/2013 Return back Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai “Left” 2 Doldrem Investment & Finance 21/11/2013 Refused Pvt. Ltd., Dahisar (E), Mumbai 3 Ocean Investment & Finance 21/11/2013 Refused Pvt. Ltd., Dahisar (E), Mumbai 4 Veena Credit & Holding Pvt. 21/11/2013 Address moved Ltd., Kolkatta 5 Saumitra Investment & 21/11/2013 Refused Finance Pvt. Ltd., Dahisar (E), Mumbai 6

ULKA MADHUKAR SHINDE,PANVEL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Page 2,\nline no 13 of the assessment order). Thus the assessment proceedings\nare bad in law, since the same have been initiated on surmises,\nconjectures and suspicion, without any tangible evidence.\n2.\nIn the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in\nrelying purely on the information

SHAMRAO GOPAL BENAKE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

133(6) of the IT Act from the banks. In response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act the assessee furnished his return of income on 27.04.2022 declaring income of Rs.7,44,520/-, however the same was not verified and it was treated as invalid return. Vide order dated 01.03.2023 Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

133(6) of the Act for providing the financial statements for assessment year 2009-10, the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast on it in terms of section 68 of the Act i.e. the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transaction. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the various findings given

SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KHARKHANA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act vide notice dated 19.07.2022. Accordingly, statutory notice(s) were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee 2 ITA No.120/PUN/2025, 2015-16 requested to treat its original ITR filed on 29.09.2015 as ITR filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The assessee furnished partial reply

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

reassess such income and also any\nother income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to\nhis notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under section 147 of the\nAct\n28.1 The first proviso to section 147 is important. As per this proviso, where an\nassessment under subsection (3) of section 143 or section

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

reassess such income and also any\nother income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to\nhis notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under section 147 of the\nAct\n28.1 The first proviso to section 147 is important. As per this proviso, where an\nassessment under subsection (3) of section 143 or section

SATYAPREM RAJABHAU DHOLE,BEED vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6) of the Act, the Ld. AO completed the assessment vide order dated 31.01.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.75,11,045/- by making an addition on account of – (i) Rs.69,47,776/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and (ii) saving bank interest

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

133(6) were issued by the ITO (I & CI) Kolhapur. In these replied the claimed donors denied having made as donations to the assessee trust. The assessee could not provide any answer to the above query. No satisfactory explanation was given by the assessee. 06. The evidences collected during the course of survey action establish the following facts

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

133(6) were issued by the ITO (I & CI) Kolhapur. In these replied the claimed donors denied having made as donations to the assessee trust. The assessee could not provide any answer to the above query. No satisfactory explanation was given by the assessee. 06. The evidences collected during the course of survey action establish the following facts

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

133(6) were issued by the ITO (I & CI) Kolhapur. In these replied the claimed donors denied having made as donations to the assessee trust. The assessee could not provide any answer to the above query. No satisfactory explanation was given by the assessee. 06. The evidences collected during the course of survey action establish the following facts

SUBHASH RUNWAL,BIBWEWADI, PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(4) PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Subhash Runwal 204, Solitari-5, Nr. Kalyan Bhel, Bibwewadi Rd., Pune-411037. Pan: Adbpr7670R. . . . . . . . Appellant

133(6) of the Act obtained a bank statement from MSBL which revealed him actual cash deposits for the year under consideration were to the extent of ₹54,75,000/- as against the information received through Annual Information Return [‘AIR’ hereinafter] on the basis of which case was re-opened. The assessee vide various notice issued

NANDIGRAM KRASHI AWAM GRAM VIKAS SANSTHA SUGA,NANDED vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment. The assessee did not file its return of income for AY 2018-19. Based on the information flagged as per risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found that the assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.1,95,50,170/- with Union Bank of India and has earned interest income from IDBI Bank

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,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

133 of the Act was carried out at the business outlet of assessee firm. The partners of assessee firm during the course of search and Survey proceedings had declared undisclosed income in various assessment years. The assessee had originally filed return of income before the date of search in both the years. For the years under consideration, notice 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

133 of the Act was carried out at the business outlet of assessee firm. The partners of assessee firm during the course of search and Survey proceedings had declared undisclosed income in various assessment years. The assessee had originally filed return of income before the date of search in both the years. For the years under consideration, notice 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

133 of the Act was carried out at the business outlet of assessee firm. The partners of assessee firm during the course of search and Survey proceedings had declared undisclosed income in various assessment years. The assessee had originally filed return of income before the date of search in both the years. For the years under consideration, notice under section