VINEET TIWARI,BENGALURU vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against Credit Card bills Total 72,44,455/- 3. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened the assessment and accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

VINEET TIWARI,BANGALORE vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against Credit Card bills Total 72,44,455/- 3. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened the assessment and accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

192 (SC). 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his third plank of argument submitted that the assessee has debited the interest but such interest has been capitalized and the assessee has not claimed any interest expenditure during this year, therefore, no addition could have been made on such expenditure and at the best the work-in- progress could

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

192 (SC). 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his third plank of argument submitted that the assessee has debited the interest but such interest has been capitalized and the assessee has not claimed any interest expenditure during this year, therefore, no addition could have been made on such expenditure and at the best the work-in- progress could

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Reassess. It is therefore requested that\nnotice may please be quashed.\n\n2. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings\ninitiated under section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on\nseveral counts. Thus, it is requested

RAJA BASHUMIYA MANIYAR,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

reassessment proceeding\ninitiated U/Sec. 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act by the Ld.AO is without\njurisdiction and void ab initio as the impugned notice issued under\nsection 148 is time-barred as per the proviso to section 147 of the Act.\n2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming that the assessment order\npassed by the Ld.AO U/Sec 147 rw.s.144

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Reassess. It is therefore requested that\nnotice may please be quashed.\n\n2. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings\ninitiated under section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on\nseveral counts. Thus, it is requested

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Reassess. It is therefore requested that\nnotice may please be quashed.\n\n2.\nOn the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings\ninitiated under section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on\nseveral counts. Thus, it is requested