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

220 were received. The letter dated 02/09/2022 came out of the blue 2. Levy u/s 234E came info force from 01.06.2015. It was not retrospective but proscriptive. It was only after the receipt of the letter dated 02/09/2022 that the Appellant went to the traces site and realized that levy for late filing of return u/s 234 had been charged

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

220 were received. The letter dated 02/09/2022 came out of the blue 2. Levy u/s 234E came info force from 01.06.2015. It was not retrospective but proscriptive. It was only after the receipt of the letter dated 02/09/2022 that the Appellant went to the traces site and realized that levy for late filing of return u/s 234 had been charged

MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.” Unquote. 7. Similar View is taken by ITAT Pune in the case of Sant Motiram Maharaj Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. ITO 186 ITD 220 (Pune - Trib.) [23-09- 2020]. 8. Thus, the ITAT has repeatedly held that interest earned by Cooperative credit Society from Cooperative bank is eligible for deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURAVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT, MOHOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.” Unquote. 7. Similar View is taken by ITAT Pune in the case of Sant Motiram Maharaj Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. ITO 186 ITD 220 (Pune - Trib.) [23-09- 2020]. 8. Thus, the ITAT has repeatedly held that interest earned by Cooperative credit Society from Cooperative bank is eligible for deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURAVATHA SASTHA MARYADIT, MOHOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.” Unquote. 7. Similar View is taken by ITAT Pune in the case of Sant Motiram Maharaj Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. ITO 186 ITD 220 (Pune - Trib.) [23-09- 2020]. 8. Thus, the ITAT has repeatedly held that interest earned by Cooperative credit Society from Cooperative bank is eligible for deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVAGHA SANSTHA MARYADIT, MOHOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.” Unquote. 7. Similar View is taken by ITAT Pune in the case of Sant Motiram Maharaj Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. ITO 186 ITD 220 (Pune - Trib.) [23-09- 2020]. 8. Thus, the ITAT has repeatedly held that interest earned by Cooperative credit Society from Cooperative bank is eligible for deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT , MOHOL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.” Unquote. 7. Similar View is taken by ITAT Pune in the case of Sant Motiram Maharaj Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. ITO 186 ITD 220 (Pune - Trib.) [23-09- 2020]. 8. Thus, the ITAT has repeatedly held that interest earned by Cooperative credit Society from Cooperative bank is eligible for deduction

MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.” Unquote. 7. Similar View is taken by ITAT Pune in the case of Sant Motiram Maharaj Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. Vs. ITO 186 ITD 220 (Pune - Trib.) [23-09- 2020]. 8. Thus, the ITAT has repeatedly held that interest earned by Cooperative credit Society from Cooperative bank is eligible for deduction

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has\nbeen specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the\nlast authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under\nsection 132A of the Act, was executed.”\n37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s\n127 is assigned in favour

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has\nbeen specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the\nlast authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under\nsection 132A of the Act, was executed.”\n37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s\n127 is assigned in favour

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has\nbeen specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the\nlast authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under\nsection 132A of the Act, was executed.”\n\n37.\nThe Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s\n127 is assigned

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has\nbeen specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the\nlast authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under\nsection 132A of the Act, was executed.”\n37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s\n127 is assigned in favour

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has\nbeen specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the\nlast authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under\nsection 132A of the Act, was executed.”\n37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s\n127 is assigned in favour

ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has\nbeen specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the\nlast authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under\nsection 132A of the Act, was executed.”\n37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s\n127 is assigned in favour

SHARAD BHASKARRAO GAIKWAD,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.918/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sharad Bhaskarrao The Income Tax Officer, Gaikwad, V Nashik. T No.1, Vanai Apartment, S Gangapur Road, Behind Kulswamini Apartment, Nashik – 422005. Pan: Adspg2339R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Assessee By Revenue By Shri Sourabho Nayak – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 02.05.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.02.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A]

2) A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a) the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b) the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

220/- 1,44,27,092/- 70,50,872/- 2010-11 2,57,21,478/- 5,03,08,440/- 2,45,86,962/- 2011-12 3,95,75,541/- 7,74,05,494/- 3,78,29,953/- 2012-13 6,70,456/- 13,11,340/- 6,40,884/- Total

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

220/- 1,44,27,092/- 70,50,872/- 2010-11 2,57,21,478/- 5,03,08,440/- 2,45,86,962/- 2011-12 3,95,75,541/- 7,74,05,494/- 3,78,29,953/- 2012-13 6,70,456/- 13,11,340/- 6,40,884/- Total

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