SHRIKANT CHANDRAKANT LOKHANDE,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2696/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

234B(1) "(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where, in any financial year, an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or, where the advance tax paid by such assessee under the provisions of section 210 is less than ninety per cent of the assessed

ARUNA SINGH ,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

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

234B(1)\n\"(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where, in any financial\nyear, an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has\nfailed to pay such tax or, where the advance tax paid by such assessee\nunder the provisions of section 210 is less than ninety per cent of the\nassessed

AMIT SURESH AGRAWAL,SATARA vs. ITO WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

reassessment proceedings null and void. 3. The Assessing Officer has erroneously reopened the appellant's case under Section 147 based on a search operation conducted at the premises of M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. Since the foundation of the present case emanates from search action wherein materials were seized, explored and enquired into

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. PARTH MULTITRADE PVT LTD, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2008-09

reassessment proceedings are therefore, liable to be quashed. 4.5 On the other hand, in the remand report, the Add. CIT has also accepted that the AO has taken the approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, 11(2), Mumbai instead of specified authority as prescribed in law. 4.6 In this regard, the appellant has relied on the following judicial pronouncements

MANGLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

reassessment. Further, it is submitted that the said Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is dated 16-07-2009 and the final order of assessment was passed on 29-12-2008 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act. Therefore, as per the assessee, on the ground of debatability also, the provisions of section

KALYANCHAND MANAKCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

reassessment. Further, it is submitted that the said Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is dated 16-07-2009 and the final order of assessment was passed on 29-12-2008 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act. Therefore, as per the assessee, on the ground of debatability also, the provisions of section

KAMLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

reassessment. Further, it is submitted that the said Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is dated 16-07-2009 and the final order of assessment was passed on 29-12-2008 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act. Therefore, as per the assessee, on the ground of debatability also, the provisions of section

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts, necessary for his assessment for that assessment year." From the above provision, it is evident that what is required from A.Y. 1989-90 for issuing notice for reassessment is that the A.O. should have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment

VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.\n7.\nYour appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify alter and / or delete any of the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.\nDelay condonation :\n1.1 There is a delay of 16 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the submission and found that there

BHARAT SHIVAJI CHAVAN,SONARSIDDHNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 5, SANGLI, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.876/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bharat Shivaji Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, At Sonarsiddhnagar, Post S Ward-5, Sangli. Kowthali, Tal Atpadi, District Solapur, Kotali – 413101. Maharashtra. Pan: Auwpc0996M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 30.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 25.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

234B of the Act without properly considering the return filed, tax paid, and the computation of income based on estimated additions 10.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the Ld. NaFAC erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271D

M/S. SHANTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, RATNAIRI

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 374 & 375/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 M/S Shanti Construction Company Ram Lane, Ratnagiri. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan : Abhfs1628N बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ward-2, Ratnagiri. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee. Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Two Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 30/01/2020 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Separate Orders Of Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ratnagiri [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 26/12/2011 & 11/09/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) & 220(2) Respectively, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 1999-2000. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 16

reassessment or re-computation pursuant to direction u/s 254 is governed by the provisions of section 153(3) of the Act, which reads as; (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), an order fresh assessment in pursuance of any order under section 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment

M/S. SHANTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, RATNAGIRI

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 374 & 375/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 M/S Shanti Construction Company Ram Lane, Ratnagiri. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan : Abhfs1628N बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ward-2, Ratnagiri. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee. Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Two Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 30/01/2020 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Separate Orders Of Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ratnagiri [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 26/12/2011 & 11/09/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) & 220(2) Respectively, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 1999-2000. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 16

reassessment or re-computation pursuant to direction u/s 254 is governed by the provisions of section 153(3) of the Act, which reads as; (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), an order fresh assessment in pursuance of any order under section 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment

AZIZUDDIN LATIPHODDIN KAZI L/H OF DECEASED LATIPHODDIN AJIMODDIN KAZI,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, LATUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.835/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Azizuddin Latiphoddin Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Deceased Latiphoddin Vs Ward-4, Latur. Ajimoddin Kazi, . Block No.71, Kazi Nivas, Dastagir Galli, Tal. Ahmedpur, Latur – 413515. Pan: Aynpk5231E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P P Kulkarni – Ar Revenue By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/08/2023

234B and 234C is not justified. 8. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action assessing his interest income received under section 28 r.w.s 33 of the Land Acquisition

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The assessee prays leave to add to above grounds to amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case, the assessee Angelica Properties Pvt Ltd has been amalgamated & merged into Vascon Engineers Ltd. The assessee is in the business of construction &development

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The assessee prays leave to add to above grounds to amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case, the assessee Angelica Properties Pvt Ltd has been amalgamated & merged into Vascon Engineers Ltd. The assessee is in the business of construction &development

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

1)(a) of the Act before the date of search i.e. 09.08.2011. Admittedly, on the date of search no assessment proceedings were pending. However, we observe that there was still time for issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. As per second proviso to section 153A, the assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

1)(a) of the Act before the date of search i.e. 09.08.2011. Admittedly, on the date of search no assessment proceedings were pending. However, we observe that there was still time for issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. As per second proviso to section 153A, the assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within

RATHOD JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 68 doesn't arise. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact of incorrect levy of interest 234B of the Act on the entire assessed income while calculating demand. 5. The appellant may kindly be permitted to add to or alter any of grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. (viii) Wherever, the AO found the provisions of section 269SS/269T are violated, separate proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D/271E should be submitted. (ix) Wherever necessary, the AO shall forward 3rd party information to the AO of such party. (x) That the orders along with the demand notice