MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

263 of the Act, the assessee was obliged to declare the additional income in the Revised return of income filed on 30/09/2011, much before the issuing of the statutory notice by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s.148 of the P Act on 25/07/2012. Therefore, when the assessee had declared the due income for the year under consideration in the Revised return

GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF),,THANE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL),,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment, cannot be upheld. Therefore the revisionary proceedings exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax is not correct. Hence, the said order of Commissioner of Income Tax is set aside. 12. Before parting we may also mention that the Commissioner of Income Tax had issued the show cause notice for A.Y. 2006-07 against the assessment order passed under section

GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF),,THANE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL),,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment, cannot be upheld. Therefore the revisionary proceedings exercised by the Commissioner of Income Tax is not correct. Hence, the said order of Commissioner of Income Tax is set aside. 12. Before parting we may also mention that the Commissioner of Income Tax had issued the show cause notice for A.Y. 2006-07 against the assessment order passed under section

MAHATMA PHULE GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. PCIT-1, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

1. Jurisdictional Error in invoking Section 263 Whether on the facts and circumstances of case and in Law, the PCIT is correct in invoking provision under Section 263 for disallowance of deduction under section 80P, without appreciating the fact that Order under section 147 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of the revenue as AO himself had no further

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

1. Accommodation loan entries\n9\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\n6.2.1 The AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3) rws 148 of the act\non 28/12/2018 by making a total addition of Rs 2,79,78,912/-. The addition of this\namount has been made by the assessing officer by arriving at the figure of net\ncredit

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 / 143(3) r.w.s. 254 / 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Revenue has filed Cross Objections and cross appeals against respective appeals of assessee. 2. Out of this bunch of appeals, against appeals filed by assessee in assessment years 2003-04 and 2008-09 the Revenue has filed Cross

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 / 143(3) r.w.s. 254 / 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Revenue has filed Cross Objections and cross appeals against respective appeals of assessee. 2. Out of this bunch of appeals, against appeals filed by assessee in assessment years 2003-04 and 2008-09 the Revenue has filed Cross

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 / 143(3) r.w.s. 254 / 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Revenue has filed Cross Objections and cross appeals against respective appeals of assessee. 2. Out of this bunch of appeals, against appeals filed by assessee in assessment years 2003-04 and 2008-09 the Revenue has filed Cross

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 / 143(3) r.w.s. 254 / 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Revenue has filed Cross Objections and cross appeals against respective appeals of assessee. 2. Out of this bunch of appeals, against appeals filed by assessee in assessment years 2003-04 and 2008-09 the Revenue has filed Cross

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 / 143(3) r.w.s. 254 / 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Revenue has filed Cross Objections and cross appeals against respective appeals of assessee. 2. Out of this bunch of appeals, against appeals filed by assessee in assessment years 2003-04 and 2008-09 the Revenue has filed Cross

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 / 143(3) r.w.s. 254 / 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Revenue has filed Cross Objections and cross appeals against respective appeals of assessee. 2. Out of this bunch of appeals, against appeals filed by assessee in assessment years 2003-04 and 2008-09 the Revenue has filed Cross

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

Appeal is allowed

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

1) dated 19-03-2021, in proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 ITA No.203/PUN/2021, A.Y. 2010-11 2. It emerges at the outset that the CIT(E)’s impugned order exercising section 263 revision jurisdiction terms the corresponding assessment /reassessment herein dated

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

1) dated 09.03.2021 in proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that relevant facts in assessee’s former twin appeals hardly require us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as its first and foremost

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

1) dated 09.03.2021 in proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that relevant facts in assessee’s former twin appeals hardly require us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as its first and foremost

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

1) dated 09.03.2021 in proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that relevant facts in assessee’s former twin appeals hardly require us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as its first and foremost

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

reassessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. We find that the allegation of the Pr.CIT is unspecific and vague. Therefore, such allegations are now stand rejected. Accordingly, the same is decided in favour of the assessee. Complete lack of application of mind: On perusal of the (B). provisions of section 263 of the Act read with newly inserted

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

reassessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. We find that the allegation of the Pr.CIT is unspecific and vague. Therefore, such allegations are now stand rejected. Accordingly, the same is decided in favour of the assessee. Complete lack of application of mind: On perusal of the (B). provisions of section 263 of the Act read with newly inserted

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

reassessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. We find that the allegation of the Pr.CIT is unspecific and vague. Therefore, such allegations are now stand rejected. Accordingly, the same is decided in favour of the assessee. Complete lack of application of mind: On perusal of the (B). provisions of section 263 of the Act read with newly inserted

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

reassessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. We find that the allegation of the Pr.CIT is unspecific and vague. Therefore, such allegations are now stand rejected. Accordingly, the same is decided in favour of the assessee. Complete lack of application of mind: On perusal of the (B). provisions of section 263 of the Act read with newly inserted