CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

27. In the present case, neither in the assessment order dated 22.09.2022 nor in the subsequent show-cause notices, the Assessing Officer has specified that the case of the petitionercompany is covered under which part of sub-section (9) of Section 270A of the Act. Even in the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 also, it is not specified that which part

SACHIN MOHANLAL CHORDIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as we do not intend to adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3280 & 3281/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sachin Mohanlal Chordia, V The Income Tax Officer, B-101, Isha Emerald, S. Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewdi, Kondhwa Road, Marketyard, Pune- 411037. Pan: Aanpc8554C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Amit Bobade & Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Are Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 For Ay 2016-17, 2017-18 Passed On 22/10/2025 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders U/S 147 Rws 144 Dated 11/05/2023 & 23/05/2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

27,2021 [(2021) 434 ITR (St.)11] directed and permitted the Assessing Officers to apply the provisions of the old regime for reassessment notices to be issued after coming into force of the Finance Act, 2021 with amendment with effect from April 1, 2021. Hence, the reassessment notices were issued between April 1, 2021, and 30th June 2021 under

SACHIN MOHANLAL CHORDIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as we do not intend to adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3280 & 3281/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sachin Mohanlal Chordia, V The Income Tax Officer, B-101, Isha Emerald, S. Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewdi, Kondhwa Road, Marketyard, Pune- 411037. Pan: Aanpc8554C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Amit Bobade & Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Are Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 For Ay 2016-17, 2017-18 Passed On 22/10/2025 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders U/S 147 Rws 144 Dated 11/05/2023 & 23/05/2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

27,2021 [(2021) 434 ITR (St.)11] directed and permitted the Assessing Officers to apply the provisions of the old regime for reassessment notices to be issued after coming into force of the Finance Act, 2021 with amendment with effect from April 1, 2021. Hence, the reassessment notices were issued between April 1, 2021, and 30th June 2021 under

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE vs. ZEAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

27,447/- payable on under-reporting income of Rs.6,04,24,824/- as per the provisions of 270A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the penalty of Rs. 90,63,723/- imposed by the Ld.AO u/s 270A of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished its written submissions

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. The Hon. Court held that the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 147, rendering the notice invalid. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the notice under Section 148 and allowed the petition of the assessee. (Relevant paragraphs 16 to 24). • In the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. ACIT

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

d. Mrs. Anima Rasool v.Income Tax Officer reported at [2014]49 taxmann.com40 {AmritsarTribunal}. 6.9. Relevant extracts of the decision in the case of River Valley Meadows and Township (P.) Ltd v. DCIT reported at [2022] 134 taxmann.com 20 (Bombay) is reproduced here as under:- “2. There are various grounds raised in the Petition, the first of which is that

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM..OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

d. the amount of deemed total income assessed or reassessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC, as the case may be, is greater than the deemed total income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; e. the amount of deemed total income assessed as per the provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of Imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of Imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

HEENA IRFAN BEPATI,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1183 & 1184 /Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Heena Irfan Bepari, V The Income Tax Officer, 661, Raviwar Peth, S Ward-5, Sangli. Madhavnagar, Sangli – 416416. Maharashtra. Pan: Bnepb9635A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte– Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe –Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Both Dated 24.03.2025 Respectively.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita

27,160 E Entire 8% Addition - - - 2.2 Ld.AR submitted that the notice u/s.148 is bad in law. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In the appeal no.1183/PUN/2025 for A.Y.2013-14 the notice

HEENA IRFAN BEPARI,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1183 & 1184 /Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Heena Irfan Bepari, V The Income Tax Officer, 661, Raviwar Peth, S Ward-5, Sangli. Madhavnagar, Sangli – 416416. Maharashtra. Pan: Bnepb9635A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte– Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe –Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Both Dated 24.03.2025 Respectively.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita

27,160 E Entire 8% Addition - - - 2.2 Ld.AR submitted that the notice u/s.148 is bad in law. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In the appeal no.1183/PUN/2025 for A.Y.2013-14 the notice

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

d) ld.AO has specifically stated that since the donation received during F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17 are not genuine therefore the additions needs to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act as the assessee has not been able to explain satisfactorily the nature and source of the sum credited in the books of account. 14. The assessee raised objections

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

d) ld.AO has specifically stated that since the donation received during F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17 are not genuine therefore the additions needs to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act as the assessee has not been able to explain satisfactorily the nature and source of the sum credited in the books of account. 14. The assessee raised objections

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

d) ld.AO has specifically stated that since the donation received during F.Y. 2011-12 to F.Y. 2016-17 are not genuine therefore the additions needs to be taxed u/s.68 of the Act as the assessee has not been able to explain satisfactorily the nature and source of the sum credited in the books of account. 14. The assessee raised objections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

27-04-2021\naccording to which the time limit for issue of notice u/s 148 was extended to 30-\n04-2021 and 30-06-2021 respectively. The above notice was issued after obtaining\nthe prior approval of the competent Authority as per the prevailing provisions of\nsection 151 of the IT Act, 1961. The basis for issue of notice

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

27 DTR (Jd) 139 affirmed, CIT vs. Smt. Shaila Agarwal (2012) 246 CTR (All) 266 : (2012) 65 DTR (All) 41: (2012) 346 ITR 130 (All) relied on; KP Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 1TR 597 (SC) applied”. (Paras 25, 29 & 30) 12. In a decision in the case of M/s D J Malpani

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

27 DTR (Jd) 139 affirmed, CIT vs. Smt. Shaila Agarwal (2012) 246 CTR (All) 266 : (2012) 65 DTR (All) 41: (2012) 346 ITR 130 (All) relied on; KP Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 1TR 597 (SC) applied”. (Paras 25, 29 & 30) 12. In a decision in the case of M/s D J Malpani

RAJDEEP BUILDCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

27 DTR (Jd) 139 affirmed, CIT vs. Smt. Shaila Agarwal (2012) 246 CTR (All) 266 : (2012) 65 DTR (All) 41: (2012) 346 ITR 130 (All) relied on; KP Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 1TR 597 (SC) applied”. (Paras 25, 29 & 30) 12. In a decision in the case of M/s D J Malpani

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE vs. SANTOSH JAYNARAYAN SHARMA, DHULE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2324/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

reassessment proceedings. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹1,20,27,224 made by the Assessing Officer by rejecting the books of account u/s.145(3) and estimating net profit at 5% of turnover, without appreciating that the assessee had not maintained or produced basic records such as ledger accounts, purchase/sales bills, expense vouchers, or stock