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

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded\nas under:\ni) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section\n132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section\n153A;\nii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated;\niii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings under Section 147 and has strenuously submitted\nthat the Assessing Officer has rightly observed that the interest\nderived from the credit provided to its member is deductible\nunder Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, however, on verification of\nthe case record at the stage of scrutiny assessment, it was\nnoticed that the assessee had received interest

SHANKAR NAGAPPA JADAGOUDA,KOLHAPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

reassess income in respect of any other issue though the reasons for such issue had not been included in the reasons recorded under section 148(2). 14

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2) of section 249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 276CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A. (4) The Assessing Officer shall, within a period of one month

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

14. In the light of the aforesaid provision, it is apparently clear that the moment an agreement to sell is executed between the parties and part consideration is received, the transfer for the purpose of Section 50C of the Act takes places and computation under Section 48 of the Act will start accordingly, for the purpose of calculating the capital

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

reassess income in respect of any other issue though the reasons for such issue had not been included in the reasons recorded under section 148(2). 14

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

14 Pune Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers Board [A] made out of the funds of the assessee or from borrowed funds, is not warranted as the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer on examination of the details furnished by the assessee had accepted the contention that investment was made by the assessee

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 to Section 153A and Section 153C Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 153D. the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148." We are in complete agreement

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. (3) …… (4) …... (5) …… 12 (6) ….. (7) …. (8) …. (9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be the following, namely:— (a) misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (b) failure to record investments in the books of account; (c) claim of expenditure

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

reassessment order as well as additions made therein may\nplease be quashed.\nITA Nos.13 to 17/PUN/2024\nM/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd.\n7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-\nAppeal as well as Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts, in\nsustaining/making the addition of Rs.8,96,41,183/- without\nappreciating the real

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

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

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order as well as additions made therein may please be quashed. M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal as well as Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts, in sustaining/making the addition of Rs. 8,96,41,183/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order as well as additions made therein may please be quashed. M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal as well as Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts, in sustaining/making the addition of Rs. 8,96,41,183/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order as well as additions made therein may please be quashed. M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal as well as Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts, in sustaining/making the addition of Rs. 8,96,41,183/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order as well as additions made therein may please be quashed. M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal as well as Ld. AO have erred in law and on facts, in sustaining/making the addition of Rs. 8,96,41,183/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

2 12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 v. S. 115BBC: Appellant submits that, there the above two sections orient and aim to tax, two completely different streams of income. Here are the key differences - a. Income of different assesses Vide S. 68, what is taxed is, an Assessee's own income, which such assessee portrays through some credit