CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

233 – PB No.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice and clarified to the assessee that she had issued summons to 79 parties and the assessee was asked to explain the the transactions entered into with the said persons. 4. 10.11.2016 421 to 679 – PB No.1 The assessee submitted additional details in respect of the persons from whom URD purchases were

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

233 – PB No.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice and clarified to the assessee that she had issued summons to 79 parties and the assessee was asked to explain the the transactions entered into with the said persons. 4. 10.11.2016 421 to 679 – PB No.1 The assessee submitted additional details in respect of the persons from whom URD purchases were

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

233 – PB No.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice and clarified to the assessee that she had issued summons to 79 parties and the assessee was asked to explain the the transactions entered into with the said persons. 4. 10.11.2016 421 to 679 – PB No.1 The assessee submitted additional details in respect of the persons from whom URD purchases were

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

233 – PB No.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice and clarified to the assessee that she had issued summons to 79 parties and the assessee was asked to explain the the transactions entered into with the said persons. 4. 10.11.2016 421 to 679 – PB No.1 The assessee submitted additional details in respect of the persons from whom URD purchases were

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

233 – PB No.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice and clarified to the assessee that she had issued summons to 79 parties and the assessee was asked to explain the the transactions entered into with the said persons. 4. 10.11.2016 421 to 679 – PB No.1 The assessee submitted additional details in respect of the persons from whom URD purchases were

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

233 – PB No.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice and clarified to the assessee that she had issued summons to 79 parties and the assessee was asked to explain the the transactions entered into with the said persons. 4. 10.11.2016 421 to 679 – PB No.1 The assessee submitted additional details in respect of the persons from whom URD purchases were

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

233 – PB No.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice and clarified to the assessee that she had issued summons to 79 parties and the assessee was asked to explain the the transactions entered into with the said persons. 4. 10.11.2016 421 to 679 – PB No.1 The assessee submitted additional details in respect of the persons from whom URD purchases were

PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

233 ITR 546 (Mad). CIT V. M.M. Khambhatwala (1992) 195 ITR 144 (u), CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works, 231 ITR 53. 6. In the light of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, it is evident that the Assessing Officer failed to make necessary enquiries and verifications with regard to the facts of the case on account of which

R B DIAMOND HOUSE,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-1, RANGE -25, CIRCLE -1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 69A.\nGround No. 6: Interest Disallowance Rs.1,54,43,569/-\n6.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have\nconsidered and deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,54,43,569/-\nbeing\ninterest on Cash Credit facility as the Cash Credit facility was\nproperly reflected

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 147 is upheld and ground of appeal no.1 to 6 are dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the learned AO vide his assessment order passed u/s 147 r.ws

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 147 is upheld and ground of appeal no.1 to 6 are dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the learned AO vide his assessment order passed u/s 147 r.ws