MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

reassessment and pursuance to the order u/s. 254 or section 263 or section 264 of the Act. 3.1 The ld. AR further contended that the provisions of section 71 merely states that where the assessee in the computation of income under any head of income other than capital gain has loss and the assessee has no income under the head

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

reassessment and pursuance to the order u/s. 254 or section 263 or section 264 of the Act. 3.1 The ld. AR further contended that the provisions of section 71 merely states that where the assessee in the computation of income under any head of income other than capital gain has loss and the assessee has no income under the head

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

reassessment and pursuance to the order u/s. 254 or section 263 or section 264 of the Act. 3.1 The ld. AR further contended that the provisions of section 71 merely states that where the assessee in the computation of income under any head of income other than capital gain has loss and the assessee has no income under the head

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

reassessment and pursuance to the order u/s. 254 or section 263 or section 264 of the Act. 3.1 The ld. AR further contended that the provisions of section 71 merely states that where the assessee in the computation of income under any head of income other than capital gain has loss and the assessee has no income under the head

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

239 CTR (Bom) 183, has categorically held that the AO may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice, however, if after issuing a notice under section

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

239 CTR (Bom) 183, has categorically held that the AO may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice, however, if after issuing a notice under section

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

239 CTR (Bom) 183, has categorically held that the AO may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice, however, if after issuing a notice under section

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

239 CTR (Bom) 183, has\ncategorically held that the AO may assess or reassess the income in\nrespect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the\ncourse of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were\nnot included in the notice, however, if after issuing a notice under\nsection 148, the AO accepted the contention

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

239 CTR (Bom) 183, has\ncategorically held that the AO may assess or reassess the income in\nrespect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the\ncourse of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were\nnot included in the notice, however, if after issuing a notice under\nsection 148, the AO accepted the contention

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

239 CTR (Bom) 183, has\ncategorically held that the AO may assess or reassess the income in\nrespect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the\ncourse of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were\nnot included in the notice, however, if after issuing a notice under\nsection 148, the AO accepted the contention

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

reassessment can be made\nunless the alleged escapement of\nincome is due to failure on the part\n(i) IPCA Laboratories\nLtd. v. DCIT - [(2001)\n251 ITR 416 (Bom)]\n(ii) Hindustan Lever\nLtd. v. CIT\n[(2004)\n268 ITR 339 (Bom)]\n(iii) Grindwell Norton\nLtd. v. CIT - [(2004)\n267 ITR 673 (Bom)]\n(iv)\nGerman\nRemedies

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. SURYACHANDRA LALMANI DUBEY, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings. The AO made addition of Rs.2,04,80,489/-. Aggrieved by the Order the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The 2 Suryachandra Lalmani Dubey [R] Ld.CIT(A) held that the AO had recorded the reasons for reopening as “needs to be verified”, which is outside the purview of section 147.Accordingly,Ld.CIT(A) allowed the Legal ground

VIKAS RATANLAL JAIN,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.648/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.32, Station Road, Aurangabad. Vedant Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Afapj5847B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nandkishor S. Daga & Shri Nitesh N. Daga Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ctt(A) Along With The Learned Ao Has Erred In Contending That Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Is Applicable To All The Immovable Properties Even If Such Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade. As Mentioned In The Explanation To The Aforesaid Section, Property Means The ‘Capital Asset’ Of The Assessee & Hence If Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade, Provisions Of Such 2 Section Are Not Applicable To Such Purchase. Reliance Is Placed On The Various Judicial Precedents Wherein It Has Been Held That The Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Are Not Applicable To Stock In Trade But Is Applicable Only To Capital Assets:  Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (Huf)

239 (ITA No. 415/Viz/2019) wherein the same issue for the same assessment year was discussed. 04. The Learned CIT (A) has erred in not commenting on the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant with reference to the plots being considered as stock in trade along with applicability of S. 56(2)(vii)(b) and not commenting on the submission

BMC SOFTWARE ASIA PACIFIC PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAX) CIRCLE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bmc Software Asia Pacific Pte Vs. Acit (International Tax), Ltd., Circle-1, Pune 600, North Bridge Road, 20-01/10 Park View Square, Singapore – 188778 Pan : Aaecb0642A Appellant Respondent

section 9(1)(vi) inserted vide the Finance Act 2012 is not clarificatory as it expands the scope and hence prospective. The assessment year under consideration is 2010-11 and hence the Explanation cannot apply to the facts of the case. 8. Once it is held that the receipt in the hands of the assessee does not bear the character

KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2611 & 2612/Pun/2012 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

reassessment proceedings is the additional legal issue raised in particular for adjudication vide the appeal ITA No.2612/PUN/2012. 2. Assessee raised various grounds originally. However, during the proceedings before us, assessee filed concise grounds and the said grounds for A.Y. 2002-03 are as under : “Ground of appeal No.1: The Ld. AO erred in CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy

KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DCIT, RANGE 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2611 & 2612/Pun/2012 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

reassessment proceedings is the additional legal issue raised in particular for adjudication vide the appeal ITA No.2612/PUN/2012. 2. Assessee raised various grounds originally. However, during the proceedings before us, assessee filed concise grounds and the said grounds for A.Y. 2002-03 are as under : “Ground of appeal No.1: The Ld. AO erred in CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

reassessment proceedings as valid. CIT(A) relied on the information gathered from the Sales Tax department in this regard. On merits, CIT(A) after considering series of decisions eventually restricted the addition to 25% of the purchases made by the assessee by observing as under : “6.89 Thus, in my opinion the facts on record demonstrate that this

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

reassessment proceedings as valid. CIT(A) relied on the information gathered from the Sales Tax department in this regard. On merits, CIT(A) after considering series of decisions eventually restricted the addition to 25% of the purchases made by the assessee by observing as under : “6.89 Thus, in my opinion the facts on record demonstrate that this

VIVEK SHRAWAN AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

reassessment proceedings as valid. CIT(A) relied on the information gathered from the Sales Tax department in this regard. On merits, CIT(A) after considering series of decisions eventually restricted the addition to 25% of the purchases made by the assessee by observing as under : “6.89 Thus, in my opinion the facts on record demonstrate that this