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

142 has been issued to him, or\n(b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no\nnotice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation\nof serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or\n(c) assessment or reassessment

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee\nseeking information regarding the deduction claimed by the assessee, in\nresponse to which the assessee filed its part reply stating that it does not\nhave any other business activity apart from the business of accepting\ndeposits from the members and lending loans to members and that these\nactivities

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

142(1) of the Act in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act determining the total income of Rs.19,60,971/- wherein he made addition of Rs.10,76,291/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2

SAGAR BABANRAO AWATADE,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.79/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should not be completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

142(1) of the Act requesting Petitioner to attend his office on 16/10/2019 at 11.00 a.m. Petitioner, vide order dated 15/10/2019, informed Respondent No.1 that the objections against the reopening notice have not been disposed of. On 29/11/2019, Respondent No.1 passed the order of disposing of objections holding that notice under Section 147 is based on tangible material. 8. Petitioner

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 proceedings were carried out. The assessee in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act submitted vide letter dated 03.04.2017 that return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 filed on 07.11.2014 be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter issued statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the assessee appeared from time to time and filed various details. 2 3. The Assessing Officer noted that during the course of survey proceedings 4 registers for the financial year 2018-19 and 11 registers for the financial year 2019- 20 were found which

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

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

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

142 or under\nsub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for\nthe making of the return or by the notice under the first\nproviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to\nsection 144] to show cause why the assessment should not\nbe completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing\nOfficer, whichever

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

142 or under\nsub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for\nthe making of the return or by the notice under the first\nproviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to\nsection 144] to show cause why the assessment should not\nbe completed to the best of the judgment of the Assessing\nOfficer, whichever

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee seeking information regarding the deduction claimed by the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed its part reply stating that it does not have any other business activity apart from the business of accepting deposits from the members and lending loans to members and that these activities

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