ANIL KISANLAL MARDA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

282 provides that the Board may make rules providing for the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which the communication referred to in sub-section (1) may be delivered or transmitted to the person therein named. Pursuant to this provision, rule 127 has been inserted by the IT (Eighteenth Amendment) Rules, 2015 w.e.f

GANESH SHANKAR PUJARE,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, KUDAL, KUDAL

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.40/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ganesh Shankar Pujare, Vs. Ito, Ward, Kudal. Bidyewadi, At Post Kalmath, Taluka Kankavli, Sindhudurg- 416602. Pan : Anipp5657R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar : Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Assailing The Order Dated 08.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A) [‘Nfac’] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. Legality & Validity Of Reassessment Proceeding; 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Re-Assessment Proceeding Initiated By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law As The Same Is Based On Suspicious & Incorrect Information. Hence, As The Formation Of Belief Is Based On Incorrect, Suspicious & Vague Facts Same Is Unsus Tainable In Eye Of Law. 2. On The Facts & In Law, There Is Serious Jurisdictional Requirement In The Reasons Recorded By The Assessing Officer As He

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. That as per reasons recorded by Ld. A. O., information only on alleged suspicious transactions in Bank account, without mentioning name of a Bank, is given as justification which cannot be equated with expression “reason to belief’ as contemplated in Section 147 of the Act. 9. On the facts

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

282 (a) of the Act of 1961, which provides that notice or other documents to be issued for the purpose of the Act of 1961 by any income-tax authority shall be deemed to be authenticated if name and designation is provided. In approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961, name, designation and office is printed. Hence, submission

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. NARENDRA SAMPATLAL BAFNA, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

282 ITR 0259: (2006) 155 Taxman 0454 (Madras High Court) The assessee also relied on the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Financial services Ltd- vs- ACOIT- which inter alia, directed the revenue to adhere to certain guidelines to be followed for reassessment proceedings, (a) While communicating the reasons for re-opening

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

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

282 ITR 273 has after referring to the decision of Radhasoami Satsang (supra) has observed as under :— "20. The decisions cited have uniformly held that res judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax for different assessment years because res judicata applies to debar courts from entertaining issues on the same cause of action whereas the cause of action

RAJA BASHUMIYA MANIYAR,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

reassessment proceeding\ninitiated U/Sec. 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act by the Ld.AO is without\njurisdiction and void ab initio as the impugned notice issued under\nsection 148 is time-barred as per the proviso to section 147 of the Act.\n2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming that the assessment order\npassed by the Ld.AO U/Sec 147 rw.s.144

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

282/- 2010-11 17,10,27,590/- 17,71,45,898/- 2011-12 27,93,42,510/- 30,10,06,

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

282/- 2010-11 17,10,27,590/- 17,71,45,898/- 2011-12 27,93,42,510/- 30,10,06,

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

282/- 2010-11 17,10,27,590/- 17,71,45,898/- 2011-12 27,93,42,510/- 30,10,06,

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

282/- 2010-11 17,10,27,590/- 17,71,45,898/- 2011-12 27,93,42,510/- 30,10,06,

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

282/- 2010-11 17,10,27,590/- 17,71,45,898/- 2011-12 27,93,42,510/- 30,10,06,

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

282/- 2010-11 17,10,27,590/- 17,71,45,898/- 2011-12 27,93,42,510/- 30,10,06,

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

282/- 2010-11 17,10,27,590/- 17,71,45,898/- 2011-12 27,93,42,510/- 30,10,06,

M/S SUNIL CHETNDAS KATARIYA, HUF,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, , NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Sunil Chetandas Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Nashik. Katariya, 649, Sai Villa, Lam Road, Deolali Camp, Nashik- 422401. Pan : Aaths6634R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik [‘Pcit’] Dated 12.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Pcit Erred In Holding That The Asst. Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 In The Case Of The Assessee For A.Y.2011 - 12 Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Thereby

section 68 of the Act and, therefore, the Assessing Officer should have made addition u/s 68 5 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT issued a show- cause notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 23.02.2021. In response to the show-cause notice, the appellant had not responded. In the circumstances, the ld. PCIT had formed an opinion

USHA K JOLLY CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION), , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.174/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Usha K. Jolly Charitable Vs. Cit (Exemption), Pune. Trust, 23, Jolly Villa, Bund Garden Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaatu1384R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [‘The Cit (Exemption)’] Dated 30.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit (Exemptions) Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking The Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961, Since Issues

section 13(1)(c) of the Act. 5. In the light of above three violations, the ld. CIT (Exemption) formed an opinion that the appellant trust is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT (Exemption) formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. POONA CLUB LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

reassessment proceedings. Hence, the cross appeals filed by the Revenue do not survive. 16. In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos.1235 & 1236/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 stand dismissed. ITA No.894/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 – By Assessee : ITA No.1237/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 – By Revenue : 17. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. POONA CLUB LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

reassessment proceedings. Hence, the cross appeals filed by the Revenue do not survive. 16. In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos.1235 & 1236/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 stand dismissed. ITA No.894/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 – By Assessee : ITA No.1237/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 – By Revenue : 17. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee

POONA CLUB LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

reassessment proceedings. Hence, the cross appeals filed by the Revenue do not survive. 16. In the result, the cross appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos.1235 & 1236/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2008-09 & 2009-10 stand dismissed. ITA No.894/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 – By Assessee : ITA No.1237/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 – By Revenue : 17. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee