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

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

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

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

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

264 ITR 571. 11. In view of the above discussion, we annul the reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act.” In this case, it was held that the reasons for which reopening was made have been proved to be wrong, then in that event, any decision/addition made on the basis of said reassessment is unsustainable and becomes void

MRINALINI JAYANT PURANIK,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20 Mrinalini Jayant Puranik Ito, Ward 2(2), Pune Flat 14, Khagol Coop Society, Vs. S.No.38/1, Panchavati, Pashan, Pune – 411008 Pan: Almpp5163E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section

M/S. SHANTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, RATNAIRI

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

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

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

reassessment is unsustainable and becomes void. Reliance can also be placed in this respect on another authority of Hon'ble Madras High Court styled as "Ace Investments Ltd. and Another Vs. Settlement Commission and Others", 264 ITR 571.” 22. We further find that the above decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals

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

reassessment is unsustainable and becomes void. Reliance can also be placed in this respect on another authority of Hon'ble Madras High Court styled as "Ace Investments Ltd. and Another Vs. Settlement Commission and Others", 264 ITR 571.” 22. We further find that the above decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals

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

reassessment is unsustainable and becomes void. Reliance can also be placed in this respect on another authority of Hon'ble Madras High Court styled as "Ace Investments Ltd. and Another Vs. Settlement Commission and Others", 264 ITR 571.” 22. We further find that the above decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals

MOTIWALA AUTO PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD1(1), AURANABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings. Therefore, notice\nissued u/s 148 and the consequential assessment order passed is illegal and\ndeserves to be quashed.\n2. THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS\nOF SECTION 151A\n2.1 The Ld. JAO has erred in assuming the jurisdiction to issue the notice u/s\n148 which is in non-compliance to the provisions

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

reassessment is\nunsustainable and becomes void. Reliance can also be placed in this\nrespect on another authority of Hon'ble Madras High Court styled as\n\"Ace Investments Ltd. and Another Vs. Settlement Commission and\nOthers\", 264 ITR 571.”\n22. We further find that the above decision of the Coordinate\nBench in the case of PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals

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

reassessment is\nunsustainable and becomes void. Reliance can also be placed in this\nrespect on another authority of Hon'ble Madras High Court styled as\n\"Ace Investments Ltd. and Another Vs. Settlement Commission and\nOthers", 264 ITR 571.”\n22. We further find that the above decision of the Coordinate\nBench in the case of PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals

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

reassessment is\nunsustainable and becomes void. Reliance can also be placed in this\nrespect on another authority of Hon'ble Madras High Court styled as\n\"Ace Investments Ltd. and Another Vs. Settlement Commission and\nOthers\", 264 ITR 571.”\n22. We further find that the above decision of the Coordinate\nBench in the case of PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals

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

REASSESSMENT: a. No reasons are recorded The proposal for reopening as part of the Approval has been placed on record. The said document states that it is a proposal for recording reasons for initiating action u/s 147 and not the reasons recorded by AO. In the said document, there is no whisper about reason to believe

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE vs. THE SHETKARI SHIKSHAN MANDAL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

264/- claimed by the assessee towards application of income on account of capital expenditure, for the reasons reproduced above. It is against this ex-parte order of the Ld. AO that the assessee went into appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the reopening of assessment. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee (recorded

KALPESH RATILAL GARDHARIA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD- 2(3), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

reassessment proceedings? Further it is requested that: 1. The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. it is prayed that the above claims and allowances be allowed. 2. The assessee has also raised the additional grounds of appeal which is as follows : 1. Additional grounds: This is in substitution of Additional

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

reassessment proceedings which culminated into the impugned addition. Now the facts narrated by the ld. Counsel for the appeal indicate that the assessee purchased land during F.Y. 1992-93 and sold it in F.Y. 1996-97 for a consideration of Rs.45.00 lakhs and the assessee after claiming the cost of acquisition at Rs.21,98,230/- offered the remaining profit