MADHURI DHANANJAUY MARATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1639 & 1640/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Smt. Madhuri Dhananjay Marathe, 3, Yashodhara Apartment, Chinchkhed Road, At Post Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka- Niphad, Nashik Pan : Amjpm4024B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

160/- i.e. 20 % out of labour expenses of Rs.1,20,800/-. 6. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-I, Nashik, is not justified in disallowing the expenses totaling to Rs.2,96,360/- when the expenses are not claimed by the appellant as deduction from Total Income because

MADHURI DHANANJAUY MARATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1639 & 1640/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Smt. Madhuri Dhananjay Marathe, 3, Yashodhara Apartment, Chinchkhed Road, At Post Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka- Niphad, Nashik Pan : Amjpm4024B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

160/- i.e. 20 % out of labour expenses of Rs.1,20,800/-. 6. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-I, Nashik, is not justified in disallowing the expenses totaling to Rs.2,96,360/- when the expenses are not claimed by the appellant as deduction from Total Income because

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

160 taxmann.com 404 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the Assessing Officer, upon receiving CIB information indicating significant share transactions by assessee, issued a notice under section 148 to reopen assessment, since reasons recorded showed that Assessing Officer only wanted to verify more details regarding share transaction, that could

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

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

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

MANGLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 initiated by issue of notice/s served on 08/03/2011 after expiry of four years in absence of reason to believe that there was failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment within the meaning of first proviso to Section 147. 8. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought my attention

KALYANCHAND MANAKCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 initiated by issue of notice/s served on 08/03/2011 after expiry of four years in absence of reason to believe that there was failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment within the meaning of first proviso to Section 147. 8. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought my attention

KAMLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 initiated by issue of notice/s served on 08/03/2011 after expiry of four years in absence of reason to believe that there was failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment within the meaning of first proviso to Section 147. 8. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought my attention

JASMINE ZUBIN SHROFF,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2380/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs.Jasmine Zubin Shroff V The Income Tax (Through Legal Heir Zubin K S Officer, Shroff), Ward-7(1), Pune. 826/C No.5, Anklesharia Blocks, Dastur Meher Road, Camp, Pune - 411001. Pan:Basps7144E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B C Malakar Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe - Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Legal Heir Of Late Jasmine Z. Shroff 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.2012-13 Dated 19.12.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The

160 (Bom-HC) n this case delay of 198 days in filing the appeal was condoned. vi. AUTOSER (P.) Ltd. [1998] 101 Taxman 70 (Coch.) (Mag) vii. N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998} 7 SCC 123, 1998 (9) TMI 602 SC; 6 ITA No.2380/PUN/2025 [A] Condonation of Delay : 3. Assessee was admitted for treatment of Cancer, unfortunately she died. Legal

VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings under section 147, 148 and 148A of the Act, should be done in a faceless manner.\n4. During the course of assessment, the Ld. A. O. accepted the fact that the sale transaction was not of Rs.3,60,00,000/- as reported by the Insight Portal, but of Rs.1,20,00,000/- as per the document provided

AMBALAL GORAKH CHOUDHARI,PRAKASHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1422/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ambalal Gorakh Choudhari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Dhule. Legal Heir Anita Ambalal Chaudhari, Mukteshwar Mandir, At Post Prakasha, Taluka Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar- 425409. Pan : Afrpc1304D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Rathi Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Gurugram [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Assessing Officer & The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Making/Confirming Additions Of Rs. 1020740/- To Returned Income U/S.69A Of The Act, As Said Section Is Applicable Only When In Any Financial Year The Assessee Is Found To Be Owner Of Any Money, Bullion, Jewellery Or Any Other

reassessment. The court held that the petitioner's communication about the death of the assessee cannot be considered as participation in the proceedings, and thus, the notice issued under section 148 was deemed invalid. (ii) Vipin Walia v. Income-tax Officer [2016] 67 taxmanın.com 56 (Delhi) The High Court of Delhi dealt with a situation where a notice under

MR VIKAS JAYRAM BHUKAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2483/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Pune. Survey No.34, House No.80, Azad Chowk, Opposite Ramma, Lohegaon, Near Gram Panchayat, Pune- 411047. Pan : Alqpb0811K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Singha Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Notice For Levy Of Penalty Was Defective Since No Specific Charge Of Violation, Was Made Out In The Notice & Thus The Consequent Penalty So Levied Be Kindly Deleted.

160/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained income of Rs.43,51,400/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. Subsequently, by an order dated 23.09.2015 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs.13

SUNAND CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

160 of the paper book. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue against the assessee on this issue has distinguished this decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal on the ground that the Ld. DR at the time of argument could not point out any contrary decision against the decision of Hon’ble Madras High

SUNANDA CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

160 of the paper book. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue against the assessee on this issue has distinguished this decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal on the ground that the Ld. DR at the time of argument could not point out any contrary decision against the decision of Hon’ble Madras High

HEENA IRFAN BEPATI,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1183 & 1184 /Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Heena Irfan Bepari, V The Income Tax Officer, 661, Raviwar Peth, S Ward-5, Sangli. Madhavnagar, Sangli – 416416. Maharashtra. Pan: Bnepb9635A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte– Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe –Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Both Dated 24.03.2025 Respectively.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita

160 E Entire 8% Addition - - - 2.2 Ld.AR submitted that the notice u/s.148 is bad in law. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In the appeal no.1183/PUN/2025 for A.Y.2013-14 the notice u/s.148