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

Appeal is allowed

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

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 29-09-2017 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue. Mr. Jain’s first and foremost arguments challenges the foregoing reassessment

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

2) of 2009. However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147. An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override it or render the substance and core nugatory. Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing

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

2) of 2009. However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147. An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override it or render the substance and core nugatory. Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing

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

2) of 2009. However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147. An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override it or render the substance and core nugatory. Section 147 has this effect that the Assessing

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, the period of limitation provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 263 would commence from the date of the order

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, the period of limitation provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 263 would commence from the date of the order

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

2 of section 263 of the Act, ld. DR submitted that it is the case of making order by the Assessing Officer allowing certain reliefs without enquiring into the claims of the assessee. He also submitted fairly that it is the case of inadequate enquiry. In a way, ld. DR appreciated the facts that it is not a case

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

2 of section 263 of the Act, ld. DR submitted that it is the case of making order by the Assessing Officer allowing certain reliefs without enquiring into the claims of the assessee. He also submitted fairly that it is the case of inadequate enquiry. In a way, ld. DR appreciated the facts that it is not a case

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

2 of section 263 of the Act, ld. DR submitted that it is the case of making order by the Assessing Officer allowing certain reliefs without enquiring into the claims of the assessee. He also submitted fairly that it is the case of inadequate enquiry. In a way, ld. DR appreciated the facts that it is not a case

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

2 of section 263 of the Act, ld. DR submitted that it is the case of making order by the Assessing Officer allowing certain reliefs without enquiring into the claims of the assessee. He also submitted fairly that it is the case of inadequate enquiry. In a way, ld. DR appreciated the facts that it is not a case

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

2 of section 263 of the Act, ld. DR submitted that it is the case of making order by the Assessing Officer allowing certain reliefs without enquiring into the claims of the assessee. He also submitted fairly that it is the case of inadequate enquiry. In a way, ld. DR appreciated the facts that it is not a case

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

2 of section 263 of the Act, ld. DR submitted that it is the case of making order by the Assessing Officer allowing certain reliefs without enquiring into the claims of the assessee. He also submitted fairly that it is the case of inadequate enquiry. In a way, ld. DR appreciated the facts that it is not a case

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

2 of section 263 of the Act, ld. DR submitted that it is the case of making order by the Assessing Officer allowing certain reliefs without enquiring into the claims of the assessee. He also submitted fairly that it is the case of inadequate enquiry. In a way, ld. DR appreciated the facts that it is not a case

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

2. Whether filing of ITR within time as section 80AC is mandatory or discretionary 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 that compliance under section 80AC is not mandatory and it is discretionary and further, by implication

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. (3) …… (4) …... (5) …… 12 (6) ….. (7) …. (8) …. (9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be the following, namely:— (a) misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (b) failure to record investments in the books of account; (c) claim of expenditure

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

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