RITVIK SANDEEP KOLATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

b) of sub-section (1) of this Section or Section 153A or Section 153C, as the case may be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021". 28. Section has to be interpreted so as to give meaning to all the words/phrases used in the Section and it should not be interpreted in such

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

B. Agrawal (supra) and in bunch of appeals with lead order in ACIT Vs. Shamsundar Laxman Jagtap (supra). The relevant provisions of the Act to which reference is being made is section 153C of the Act which provides as under:- ―153C. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where

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

B. Agrawal (supra) and in bunch of appeals with lead order in ACIT Vs. Shamsundar Laxman Jagtap (supra). The relevant provisions of the Act to which reference is being made is section 153C of the Act which provides as under:- ―153C. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where

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

B. Agrawal (supra) and in bunch of appeals with lead order in ACIT Vs. Shamsundar Laxman Jagtap (supra). The relevant provisions of the Act to which reference is being made is section 153C of the Act which provides as under:- ―153C. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where

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

B. Agrawal (supra) and in bunch of appeals with lead order in ACIT Vs. Shamsundar Laxman Jagtap (supra). The relevant provisions of the Act to which reference is being made is section 153C of the Act which provides as under:- ―153C. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where

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

B. Agrawal (supra) and in bunch of appeals with lead order in ACIT Vs. Shamsundar Laxman Jagtap (supra). The relevant provisions of the Act to which reference is being made is section 153C of the Act which provides as under:- ―153C. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where

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

B. Agrawal (supra) and in bunch of appeals with lead order in ACIT Vs. Shamsundar Laxman Jagtap (supra). The relevant provisions of the Act to which reference is being made is section 153C of the Act which provides as under:- ―153C. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where

SACHIN MOHANLAL CHORDIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as we do not intend to adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3280 & 3281/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sachin Mohanlal Chordia, V The Income Tax Officer, B-101, Isha Emerald, S. Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewdi, Kondhwa Road, Marketyard, Pune- 411037. Pan: Aanpc8554C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Amit Bobade & Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Are Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 For Ay 2016-17, 2017-18 Passed On 22/10/2025 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders U/S 147 Rws 144 Dated 11/05/2023 & 23/05/2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

reassessment notices are to be dealt with as under: (i) AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15 and AY 2015- 16: Fresh notice under section 148 of the Act can be issued in these cases, with the approval of the specified authority, only if the case falls under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 149

SACHIN MOHANLAL CHORDIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as we do not intend to adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3280 & 3281/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sachin Mohanlal Chordia, V The Income Tax Officer, B-101, Isha Emerald, S. Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewdi, Kondhwa Road, Marketyard, Pune- 411037. Pan: Aanpc8554C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Amit Bobade & Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Are Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 For Ay 2016-17, 2017-18 Passed On 22/10/2025 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders U/S 147 Rws 144 Dated 11/05/2023 & 23/05/2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

reassessment notices are to be dealt with as under: (i) AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15 and AY 2015- 16: Fresh notice under section 148 of the Act can be issued in these cases, with the approval of the specified authority, only if the case falls under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 149

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

reassessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the 9 ITA No.368/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 entire Income-tax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b

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

149(1)(b) r.w.s. 139(1)(b) of the Act. Hence, when the very basis of reasons recorded ‘cash deposits’ by the Ld. AO was ultimately not added, then the primary reason to believe that income had escaped assessment fails and such reassessment cannot be treated as a valid order in the eyes of law. ITAT-Pune Page

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

1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 119, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that. (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained

VISHNU SUBHASH AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2015-16

b. TOLA will continue to apply to the Income Tax Act after 1 April 2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act falls for completion between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021; 8 c. Section 3(1) of TOLA overrides Section 149 of the Income Tax Act only to the extent

KUMAR MATUNGA PROJECT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

b. TOLA will continue to apply to the Income Tax Act after 1 April 2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act falls for completion between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021; c. Section 3(1) of TOLA overrides Section 149 of the Income Tax Act only to the extent

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained

MOTIWALA AUTO PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD1(1), AURANABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings relying on the decision of\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra)\non the ground that the notice issued to the assessee under Section 148 of the\nAct is barred by limitation. On perusal of this legal ground raised by the\nassessee, we find that it goes to the root

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case