SHRI SHANTINATH BHAGWAN JAIN SHWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK SANGH,PUNE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary

M/S. SHI vs. HAKTI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,OSMANABADVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, NANDED

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shivshakti Shetkari Vs. Dcit, Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Circle-3, Limited, Nanded Washi Dist., Osmanabad. Pan : Aacts1082Q Appellant Respondent

reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation 3, it would be necessary

SHANKAR NAGAPPA JADAGOUDA,KOLHAPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

reassess income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148." 4 ITA.No.381/PUN./2024 7. In order to appreciate the reasons for the amendment inserting Explanation

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

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

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

255 (SC), he submitted that it has been categorically observed that any claim for giving benefit of Section 11 on the basis of information supplied subsequent to the completion of assessment would mean that the assessment order will have to be re-opened and the Act does not contemplate such re-opening of the assessment. Therefore, in view

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

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

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

255 (SC), he submitted that it has been categorically observed that any claim for giving benefit of Section 11 on the basis of information supplied subsequent to the completion of assessment would mean that the assessment order will have to be re-opened and the Act does not contemplate such re-opening of the assessment. Therefore, in view

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

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

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

255 (SC), he submitted that it has been categorically observed that any claim for giving benefit of Section 11 on the basis of information supplied subsequent to the completion of assessment would mean that the assessment order will have to be re-opened and the Act does not contemplate such re-opening of the assessment. Therefore, in view

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

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

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

255 (SC), he submitted that it has been categorically observed that any claim for giving benefit of Section 11 on the basis of information supplied subsequent to the completion of assessment would mean that the assessment order will have to be re-opened and the Act does not contemplate such re-opening of the assessment. Therefore, in view

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

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

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

255 (SC), he submitted that it has been categorically observed that any claim for giving benefit of Section 11 on the basis of information supplied subsequent to the completion of assessment would mean that the assessment order will have to be re-opened and the Act does not contemplate such re-opening of the assessment. Therefore, in view

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

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

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

255 (SC), he submitted that it has been categorically observed that any claim for giving benefit of Section 11 on the basis of information supplied subsequent to the completion of assessment would mean that the assessment order will have to be re-opened and the Act does not contemplate such re-opening of the assessment. Therefore, in view

M/S. VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

255 (SB) (Pune) 86 ……….. ……….. The amendment brought about by the insertion of cl. (d) in s.80-IB(10), in our understanding, is a substantive amendment and it is applicable from the date the legislature has so specifically provided i.e. 1st April, 2005. 4. CIT V. Brahma Associates – 333 ITR 289 (Bombay) 29. Lastly, the argument of the Revenue that

VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

255 (SB) (Pune) 86 ……….. ……….. The amendment brought about by the insertion of cl. (d) in s.80-IB(10), in our understanding, is a substantive amendment and it is applicable from the date the legislature has so specifically provided i.e. 1st April, 2005. 4. CIT V. Brahma Associates – 333 ITR 289 (Bombay) 29. Lastly, the argument of the Revenue that

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

255 (SC) various shareholders, in view of fact that summons to shareholders under section 131 could not be served as addresses were not available, and, moreover, those shareholders were first time assessees and were not earning enough income to make deposits in question, addition made by Assessing Officer under section 68 was to be confirmed; SLP dismissed 20 Gopal Extrusions

AKTIEBOLAGET TETRA PAK,PUNE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.265 & 211/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

reassessment proceedings, have been reproduced on pages 3 to 6 of the draft assessment order, which read as under : “Reasons for reopening of the assessment in the case of For A.Y. 2012-13 u/s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 The return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed by the assessee M/s. Aktiebolaget Tetra

AKTIEBOLAGET TETRA PAK,PUNE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.265 & 211/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

reassessment proceedings, have been reproduced on pages 3 to 6 of the draft assessment order, which read as under : “Reasons for reopening of the assessment in the case of For A.Y. 2012-13 u/s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 The return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 was filed by the assessee M/s. Aktiebolaget Tetra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. AVESTA COMPUTERS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2070 & 2071/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Avesta Computers Pvt. Ltd., Kapil Complex, Baner Road, Baner, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411045 Pan: Aabca4736F

section 10A(5) of the Act as per which deduction u/s 10A cannot be allowed unless report of an accountant is furnished in prescribed Form No.56F ITA Nos.2070 & 2071/PUN/2016 3 certifying that deduction has been correctly claimed as per law. In this case form No.56F has been filed in the reassessment proceeding before the Assessing Officer and is beyond

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. AVESTA COMPUTERS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2070 & 2071/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Avesta Computers Pvt. Ltd., Kapil Complex, Baner Road, Baner, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411045 Pan: Aabca4736F

section 10A(5) of the Act as per which deduction u/s 10A cannot be allowed unless report of an accountant is furnished in prescribed Form No.56F ITA Nos.2070 & 2071/PUN/2016 3 certifying that deduction has been correctly claimed as per law. In this case form No.56F has been filed in the reassessment proceeding before the Assessing Officer and is beyond