PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

reassessment under section 153A [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel] or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA; (bb) an order made under sub-section (3) of section 92CD; (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

reassessment under section 153A [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel] or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA; (bb) an order made under sub-section (3) of section 92CD; (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing

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

201 ITR 325 was considering Section 80J(6A). The Gujarat High Court took the view put by this court in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81. It was held that the provision about furnishing of the auditor's report along with the return has to be treated as procedural provision and, therefore, directory in nature. 15. The provisions

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

201 ITR 325 was considering Section 80J(6A). The Gujarat High Court took the view put by this court in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81. It was held that the provision about furnishing of the auditor's report along with the return has to be treated as procedural provision and, therefore, directory in nature. 15. The provisions

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

201 ITR 325 was considering Section 80J(6A). The Gujarat High Court took the view put by this court in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81. It was held that the provision about furnishing of the auditor's report along with the return has to be treated as procedural provision and, therefore, directory in nature. 15. The provisions

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

201 ITR 325 was considering Section 80J(6A). The Gujarat High Court took the view put by this court in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81. It was held that the provision about furnishing of the auditor's report along with the return has to be treated as procedural provision and, therefore, directory in nature. 15. The provisions

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

201 ITR 325 was considering Section 80J(6A). The Gujarat High Court took the view put by this court in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81. It was held that the provision about furnishing of the auditor's report along with the return has to be treated as procedural provision and, therefore, directory in nature. 15. The provisions

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

201 ITR 325 was considering Section 80J(6A). The Gujarat High Court took the view put by this court in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81. It was held that the provision about furnishing of the auditor's report along with the return has to be treated as procedural provision and, therefore, directory in nature. 15. The provisions

SHAMKANT KESHAV KOTKAR (PROP. NANDAN BUILDERS),PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

201 pages. ITA No.1358/PUN/2025 [A] 2.1 The ld.AR Mr.Kishor Phadke submitted that in this case, original assessment order was passed on 12.12.2019 for A.Y.2017- 18 under section 143(3) of the Act, accepting returned income at Rs.2,18,66,125/-. In this case, Assessee had e-filed return of income on 07.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs.2

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 189 of\nthe Act and upholding the impugned assessment order in case of a dissolved\nfirm for the relevant AY 2017-18 i.e. post dissolution when the firm is not even\nin existence.\n6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the Ld.\nAO and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.\n7. We have heard

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 189 of\nthe Act and upholding the impugned assessment order in case of a dissolved\nfirm for the relevant AY 2017-18 i.e. post dissolution when the firm is not even\nin existence.\n6.\nThe Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the Ld.\nAO and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.\n7.\nWe have heard

LAXMI BABU DEBNATH,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2876 & 2877/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 201-12 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business S Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune – 411001. Pan: Acpyd2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhishek Meshtram - Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income

201-12 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business s Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near RTO, Pune – 411001. PAN: ACPYD2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – AR Revenue by Shri Abhishek Meshtram - Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 10/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/02/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD

LAXMI BABU DEBNATH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7 (1), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2876 & 2877/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 201-12 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business S Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune – 411001. Pan: Acpyd2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhishek Meshtram - Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income

201-12 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business s Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near RTO, Pune – 411001. PAN: ACPYD2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – AR Revenue by Shri Abhishek Meshtram - Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 10/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/02/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD

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

201(1A) but no disallowance could have been made for the impugned assessment year. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being not in accordance with law should be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed. 14. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order

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

201(1A) but no disallowance could have been made for the impugned assessment year. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being not in accordance with law should be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed. 14. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order

VILSON ROOFING PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 956/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vilson Roofing Products Pvt. Ltd., 1St Lane, Opp. Prataprao Jagdale Hall, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur, Pin – 416 008 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan: Aaccv0661M

201-02 (SC) examining the power of court to investigate the belief of the AO has held as under: “All that is necessary to give special jurisdiction under section 147(a) is that the Assessing Officer had when he assumed jurisdiction some prims facie grounds for thinking that there has been some non-disclosure of material facts. Whether these grounds

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

201, Sai Siddhi, Pune Behind Congress Bhavan, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411005 Maharashtra PAN : AACCK8117H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue by : Shri Ramnath Murkunde Date of hearing : 24.07.2024 Date of pronouncement 31.07.2024 : आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

ABDULWAHID ABDULKARIM QURESHI,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

201, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2022) 444 ITR 41, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh in the case of Yuvraj Vs. ITO and others reported in (2022) 444 ITR 329. Hon’ble Court has held that the impugned notices in all these batch

ABDULWAHID ABDULKARIM QURESHI,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

201, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2022) 444 ITR 41, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh in the case of Yuvraj Vs. ITO and others reported in (2022) 444 ITR 329. Hon’ble Court has held that the impugned notices in all these batch