GAURI SAGAR SHIVALE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gauri Sagar Shivale, Income Tax Officer, S. No. 32/4, Nimbalkar Nagar, Ward – 8(3), Pune Brt Road, Near Rajiv Gandhi Vs. College, Tathawade, Mulshi, Pune-411033 Pan : Bjipp4685G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 Date Of 21-07-2025 Pronouncement :

reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO made enquiry about the development agreement entered into by the assessee vide issue of notice(s) u/s 142(1) of the Act and also issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to show cause as to why the addition should not be made taxing the capital gain arising on account of the said development

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

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

234B and 234C in clear terms impose a mandate to collect interest at the rates stipulated therein. The expression 'shall' used in the said sections cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as "may". This is clear from the fact that prior to the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1987, the legislature in the corresponding section pertaining

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

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

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

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

3 years from the end of the relevant A Y 2015-16, as it is below Rs.50.00 Lakhs as per section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the Notice issued by the JAO and the assessment 2\ndone thereafter are without jurisdiction, bad in law and therefore needs to be set aside.\n5.\nIn the facts

MR. HARIVIJAY PRALHAD JOSHI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 3(3), PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2297/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr.Harivijay Prahlad Joshi, V The Income Tax 3 & 4, Megh Terrace 55 S Officer, Rambaug, Colony, Behind Ward-3(3), Pune. Chaitanya Health Club, Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Pan: Aappj9257M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar – (Virtual) On Rotation Duty Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An 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.2018-19 Dated 14.11.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under

reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to such defective notice are liable to be quashed. 3 ITA No.2297/PUN/2025 [A] 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in passing an order under section 250 of the Act without dealing with the specific grounds raised

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

234B. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. 7) The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 6 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset did not press ground No.1 for which

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

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.

3) of the IT Act and allowed ground No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee, and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of disallowance under section 80P(2) of the IT Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed ground No.3 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to delete

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.

3) of the IT Act and allowed ground No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee, and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of disallowance under section 80P(2) of the IT Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed ground No.3 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to delete

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.

3) of the IT Act and allowed ground No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee, and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of disallowance under section 80P(2) of the IT Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed ground No.3 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to delete

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.

3) of the IT Act and allowed ground No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee, and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of disallowance under section 80P(2) of the IT Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed ground No.3 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to delete

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.

3) of the IT Act and allowed ground No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee, and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of disallowance under section 80P(2) of the IT Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed ground No.3 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to delete

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.

3) of the IT Act and allowed ground No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee, and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of disallowance under section 80P(2) of the IT Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed ground No.3 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to delete

SANCHIT KANTILAL GANORE,BHAGUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, V The Income Tax Officer, 21, Main Road, Bhagur, S. Ward-1(1), Nashik. Nashik - 422502. Pan: Aprpg4907J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is 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 A.Y.2017-18, Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & Without Prejudice To Other Grounds, Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Passing A

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the notice u/s 148 on 13-04-2022 which is beyond the period of 6 years as per section 149 because fifth proviso to section 148 cannot apply in a case where

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

PRIYANVADA AMOL 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. i) Wherever, the A.O. found the provisions of the section 269SS / 269T are violated, separate proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D / 271E should be submitted. j) Wherever necessary, A.O. should forward third party information to the A.O. of such party. 3. The orders alongwith the demand notice