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

2) of Section 153A, if any proceeding initiated or any\norder of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been\nannulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding\nanything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153

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

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

reassessment or recomputation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause

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

2(a) to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.5 There is no dispute that appellant had maintained an account with Shri Renuka Matha Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. and deposited huge amount of cash into that account. However, upon verification, it is noticed that he did not file any return of income

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

2(a) to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.5 There is no dispute that appellant had maintained an account with Shri Renuka Matha Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. and deposited huge amount of cash into that account. However, upon verification, it is noticed that he did not file any return of income

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

2(a) to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.5 There is no dispute that appellant had maintained an account with Shri Renuka Matha Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. and deposited huge amount of cash into that account. However, upon verification, it is noticed that he did not file any return of income

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

2(a) to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.5 There is no dispute that appellant had maintained an account with Shri Renuka Matha Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. and deposited huge amount of cash into that account. However, upon verification, it is noticed that he did not file any return of income

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

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

2(a) to Section 147 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961.\n6.5 There is no dispute that appellant had maintained an account\nwith Shri Renuka Matha Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit\nSociety Ltd. and deposited huge amount of cash into that account.\nHowever, upon verification, it is noticed that he did not file any return\nof income

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

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

2(a) to Section 147 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961.\n6.5 There is no dispute that appellant had maintained an account\nwith Shri Renuka Matha Multi-State Urban Co-operative Credit\nSociety Ltd. and deposited huge amount of cash into that account.\nHowever, upon verification, it is noticed that he did not file any return\nof income

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

ATUL VIJAY MADAN ,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1529/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Atul Vijay Madan, V The Dcit, 2 Pooja Apartment, Behind S Circle-1, Nashik. Karwa Mangal Karyalay, Sharanpur Road, Nashik-422002. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde– Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 13.05.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.45,00,000 Made By The A.O. U/S 69 Towards Alleged Unexplained Loan

2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, such Assessing Officer shall issue the notice and assess or reassess total income of such other person

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)

153. Under section 1534(1), the Assessing Officer is empowered to issue notices to the assexsee searched for a period of six years in order to assess the income on the basis of material found during the course of search. The second proviso to section 153A(1) provides that the assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year

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)

153. Under section 1534(1), the Assessing Officer is empowered to issue notices to the assexsee searched for a period of six years in order to assess the income on the basis of material found during the course of search. The second proviso to section 153A(1) provides that the assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year

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)

153. Under section 1534(1), the Assessing Officer is empowered to issue notices to the assexsee searched for a period of six years in order to assess the income on the basis of material found during the course of search. The second proviso to section 153A(1) provides that the assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has\nbeen specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the\nlast authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under\nsection 132A of the Act, was executed.”\n37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s\n127 is assigned in favour

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

153- B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

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

153- B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section

RAMLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

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

153- B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

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

153- B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section