RAJENDRAKUMAR SHRISHRIMAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3282/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendrakumar Shrishrimal, V The Income Tax Officer, 685/3, Anant Vashat, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Pan: Bjsps9226G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Dated 03.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

158 taxmann.com 378(Delhi)/[2024] 463 ITR 702 (Delhi)/ 5 ITA No.3282/PUN/2025 [A] 2024:DHC:259-DBand Abhinav Jindal HUFv. ITO [2024] 166taxmann.com 536 (Delhi)/2024:DHC:7238-DB. This Court has consistently held that TOLA would have no relevance for determining the specified authority whose approval was mandatory under Section 151 of the Act for issuance of a notice

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

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

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

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

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

158 Taxmann.com 81 also upheld the\nsame that the appellant cannot challenge the issue of jurisdiction after\nexpiry of one month from the date on which the notice was served. In\nthe present case, several notices were issued and the appellant did not\nrespond all those statutory notices.\n6.4 Without prejudice to the above, the issue raised by the appellant

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

158 Taxmann.com 81 also upheld the same that the appellant cannot challenge the issue of jurisdiction after expiry of one month from the date on which the notice was served. In the present case, several notices were issued and the appellant did not respond all those statutory notices. 6.4 Without prejudice to the above, the issue raised by the appellant

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

158 Taxmann.com 81 also upheld the same that the appellant cannot challenge the issue of jurisdiction after expiry of one month from the date on which the notice was served. In the present case, several notices were issued and the appellant did not respond all those statutory notices. 6.4 Without prejudice to the above, the issue raised by the appellant

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

158 Taxmann.com 81 also upheld the same that the appellant cannot challenge the issue of jurisdiction after expiry of one month from the date on which the notice was served. In the present case, several notices were issued and the appellant did not respond all those statutory notices. 6.4 Without prejudice to the above, the issue raised by the appellant

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

158 Taxmann.com 81 also upheld the same that the appellant cannot challenge the issue of jurisdiction after expiry of one month from the date on which the notice was served. In the present case, several notices were issued and the appellant did not respond all those statutory notices. 6.4 Without prejudice to the above, the issue raised by the appellant

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

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

158 Taxmann.com 81 also upheld the\nsame that the appellant cannot challenge the issue of jurisdiction after\nexpiry of one month from the date on which the notice was served. In\nthe present case, several notices were issued and the appellant did not\nrespond all those statutory notices.\n6.4 Without prejudice to the above, the issue raised by the appellant

MUKUNDA PANDIT CHAUGULE,PANDHURLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3194/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukunda Pandit Chaugule, V The Income Tax Officer, 471A, Shimpi Lane, Pandurli S Nashik. B.O., Pandhurli, Nashik – 422502 Pan: Atepc5427G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 26.09.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Dated 20.04.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

158 taxmann.com 378(Delhi)/[2024] 463 ITR 702 (Delhi)/ 2024:DHC:259-DBand Abhinav Jindal HUFv. ITO [2024] 166taxmann.com 536 (Delhi)/2024:DHC:7238-DB. This Court has consistently held that TOLA would have no relevance for determining the specified authority whose approval was mandatory under Section 151 of the Act for issuance of a notice under Section

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. PARTH MULTITRADE PVT LTD, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2008-09

section 148 of the Act without proper approval is invalid, without jurisdiction and the reassessment proceedings are therefore, liable to be quashed. 4.5 On the other hand, in the remand report, the Add. CIT has also accepted that the AO has taken the approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, 11(2), Mumbai instead of specified authority as prescribed

NILESH SUBHASH CHOPDA,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) without appreciating that: (a) The learned AO has levied penalty at Rs.66,160/- which is wrong and which ought to have been levied at calculated tax of Rs.45

KUBIX REALTIES LLP,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -14 PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1260/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

158 (All) and East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. Dy.CIT (1993) 204 ITR 435 (Cal.). 11. The sanction obtained from a wrong authority vitiates the notice u/s.148 of the Act. The issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act in the instant case is bad in law. 12. Further, such defect is not curable under the provisions of section 292B

KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DCIT, RANGE 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2611 & 2612/Pun/2012 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

reassessment proceedings is the additional legal issue raised in particular for adjudication vide the appeal ITA No.2612/PUN/2012. 2. Assessee raised various grounds originally. However, during the proceedings before us, assessee filed concise grounds and the said grounds for A.Y. 2002-03 are as under : “Ground of appeal No.1: The Ld. AO erred in CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy