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

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

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

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 to imposition

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

GANPAT MUKUNDRAO MURKUTE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(2),, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

ITO WARD 9(4),, PUNE vs. SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to under section 153A is pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132, shall abate. Thus, on the date of search, there was still some time with the department for issuance of notice

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to under section 153A is pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132, shall abate. Thus, on the date of search, there was still some time with the department for issuance of notice

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

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 Act, 1894; as the case

GOLE PRECISION TOOLS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee are partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reassessment proceedings to be bad on ground of not deciding the objections against reopening of assessment are devoid of any merit and hence the same are dismissed in both the assessment years. 8. Now, we proceed on to decide the appeals of assessee on merits of the addition. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.19,16,545/- in assessment

GOLE PRECISION TOOLS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee are partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reassessment proceedings to be bad on ground of not deciding the objections against reopening of assessment are devoid of any merit and hence the same are dismissed in both the assessment years. 8. Now, we proceed on to decide the appeals of assessee on merits of the addition. The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.19,16,545/- in assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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