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

section 68 by proving the identity and 5 creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions. Relying on various decisions, it was argued that the addition u/s 68 is not in accordance with law. However, the CIT(A) while deleting the addition on merit, dismissed the grounds challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings by observing

SUBHASH RUNWAL,BIBWEWADI, PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(4) PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Subhash Runwal 204, Solitari-5, Nr. Kalyan Bhel, Bibwewadi Rd., Pune-411037. Pan: Adbpr7670R. . . . . . . . Appellant

section 147 of the Act, while adjudicating the issue in ‘CIT Vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd.’ (supra) held that when reasons are recorded for bringing to tax 'X' income and no assessment is made on the 'X' income, the AO does not possess the jurisdiction to tax any other income in the reassessment order. This ratio finds reiterated

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

section 151 of the Act was obtained.\nB. The assessment order is bad in law as the same was passed\nwithout valid DIN.”\n11. So far as the issue of validity of the assessment order\nwithout mentioning Document Identification Number (DIN) is\nconcerned, the assessee has made reference to CBDT Instruction\nNo.19/2019, dated 14.08.2019 which has been issued stating\nthat

SHRI GANAPATI DEVASTHAN TRUST,BARAMATI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION CIRCLE), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ganapati Devasthan Trust Dcit Siddheshwar Galli, Baramati, Vs. (Exemption Circle), Maharashtra – 413102 Pune Pan: Aants4193D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department By : Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-03-2025 O R D E R

reassessment stage unless allowed by the Act. The decision to deny the claim under Section 11(1A) is consistent with this legal precedent, as the appellant failed to make the claim in the initial filings. It is determined that the appellant did not comply with the procedural requirements for claiming the benefit under Section 11(1A). Therefore, this ground

VIKAS RATANLAL JAIN,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.648/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.32, Station Road, Aurangabad. Vedant Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Afapj5847B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nandkishor S. Daga & Shri Nitesh N. Daga Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ctt(A) Along With The Learned Ao Has Erred In Contending That Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Is Applicable To All The Immovable Properties Even If Such Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade. As Mentioned In The Explanation To The Aforesaid Section, Property Means The ‘Capital Asset’ Of The Assessee & Hence If Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade, Provisions Of Such 2 Section Are Not Applicable To Such Purchase. Reliance Is Placed On The Various Judicial Precedents Wherein It Has Been Held That The Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Are Not Applicable To Stock In Trade But Is Applicable Only To Capital Assets:  Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (Huf)

207 TTJ (Vishakha) 239 (ITA No. 415/Viz/2019) wherein the same issue for the same assessment year was discussed. 04. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in not commenting on the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant with reference to the plots being considered as stock in trade along with applicability of S. 56(2)(vii)(b) and not commenting

AYOKI FABRICON PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2155/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ayoki Fabricon Pvt. Ltd., 137 To 139, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Pune. Pan : Aabca5780F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 14.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.1,10,53,748/- U/S 32(1)(Iia) On New Plant & Machinery On The Ground That The Assessee Was Not Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Or Production Of Any Article Or Thing. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring The Fact That – I) The Details Furnished To The Assessing Officer By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Were Same As Were Furnished During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) & Therefore.

section 147 of the Act. 5 8. Explaining the background facts of the case, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment proceedings were finalized by the Assessing Officer, who passed the well reasoned order for the earlier assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12. In these assessment years, the assessee made a similar claim of additional

PREMCHAND R. MITTAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

207-08. 2 ITA No. 1475/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2007-08 2. Before us, at the outset that it is brought to our notice that there are two issues for adjudication in this appeal. 3. Bringing to our attention to ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the appeal, the ld. Counsel submitted that there are legal issues relating to reassessment

MAHATMA PHULE GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. PCIT-1, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

section 147 of the Act, was satisfactorily explained. 8. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of S V Jadhav vs. ITO reported in (2024) 163 taxmann.com 263 (Bom), it has been mentioned that the Hon’ble High Court applying the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case