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

RATANLAL C. BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Accordingly. These assessee’s three appeals raising the above stated identical issues as partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.01 To 03/Pun/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 To 2007-08

292 C of the Act. Mr. Ganoo lastly argued that this is very peculiar case wherein the searched assessee has all along made it clear that the assessee is in no way concerned with the seized documents entries which has gone un-rebutted from the department’s side. 5. Mr. Jasnani on the other hand has placed strong reliance

RATANLAL C. BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Accordingly. These assessee’s three appeals raising the above stated identical issues as partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.01 To 03/Pun/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 To 2007-08

292 C of the Act. Mr. Ganoo lastly argued that this is very peculiar case wherein the searched assessee has all along made it clear that the assessee is in no way concerned with the seized documents entries which has gone un-rebutted from the department’s side. 5. Mr. Jasnani on the other hand has placed strong reliance

RATANLAL C. BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Accordingly. These assessee’s three appeals raising the above stated identical issues as partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.01 To 03/Pun/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 To 2007-08

292 C of the Act. Mr. Ganoo lastly argued that this is very peculiar case wherein the searched assessee has all along made it clear that the assessee is in no way concerned with the seized documents entries which has gone un-rebutted from the department’s side. 5. Mr. Jasnani on the other hand has placed strong reliance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Under Section 11, subject to certain provisions of the Act, and on fulfilling

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Under Section 11, subject to certain provisions of the Act, and on fulfilling

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Under Section 11, subject to certain provisions of the Act, and on fulfilling

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Under Section 11, subject to certain provisions of the Act, and on fulfilling

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Under Section 11, subject to certain provisions of the Act, and on fulfilling

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

292 (P&H) has also held that as ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 per the provisions of section 11 prevailing at that time, filing of audit report was directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Under Section 11, subject to certain provisions of the Act, and on fulfilling

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

292 (Delhi) companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68 4 CIT Vs Nova Promoters and 26 to 66 Amount received by from Finlease (P.) Ltd. (2012) 18 accommodation entry providers in taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) garb of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section

SHRI UPASANI KANYAKUMARI SANSTHAN,RAHATA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

292,h as categorically held so in para 10-14 of its order as under: "10. Calcutta High Court in Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal's case (supra) while interpreting s. 12A(b) held that the provision was directory in nature and the AO could allow the assessee to file the audit report, at any time before the completion

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. NORD DRIVE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal as well as cross objection are

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Nord Drive Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune 282/2, 283/2, Plot No.15, Village Mann, Mulshi, Pune – 411 057 Pan : Aaccn0708R Appellant Respondent C.O. No.12/Pun/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.825/Pun/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nord Drive Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-2, 282/2, 283/2, Plot No.15, Pune Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, Adj. Hinjewadi Midc, Phase-Ii, Pune – 411 057 Pan : Aaccn0708R Cross Objector Appellant In The Appeal Assessee By Shri Sharad Shah & Shri Rohit Tapadia Revenue By Shri T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Date Of Hearing 27-11-2019 Date Of Pronouncement 28-11-2019 आदेश / Order

292 CTR 1 (Bom.) had an occasion to deal with the nature of depreciation. Question no. (ii) as urged before the Hon’ble High Court reads: “(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and despite the prescription of parameters of comparability by Rule 10 B (2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal

INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.148/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

292 CTR 1 (Bom.) had an occasion to deal with the nature of depreciation. Question no. (ii) as urged before the Hon’ble High Court reads : “(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and despite the prescription of parameters of comparability by Rule 10 B (2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. INA BEARINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.148/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

292 CTR 1 (Bom.) had an occasion to deal with the nature of depreciation. Question no. (ii) as urged before the Hon’ble High Court reads : “(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and despite the prescription of parameters of comparability by Rule 10 B (2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1),NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

reassessment order or through notice the specific circumstance or incidence i.e. specific clause (a) to clause (g) of s/s (2) of section 270 within which the case of the appellant falls so has to hold income as under-reported to trigger said penal provision. The failure continued further in identifying or determining and showcasing the specific action of the appellant

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

reassessment order or through notice the specific circumstance or incidence i.e. specific clause (a) to clause (g) of s/s (2) of section 270 within which the case of the appellant falls so has to hold income as under-reported to trigger said penal provision. The failure continued further in identifying or determining and showcasing the specific action of the appellant

KARAN TEJRAJ BUILDERS,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2 , PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.428/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karan Tejraj Builders, Unit 501, Karan Tej Bonita, Cts No. 1187/16, Off Ghole Road, Pune – 411 005. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaifk1891P

reassessment proceedings. The AO had not brought on record any independent inquiries regarding the cash received of Rs. 25 lakhs by the assessee firm from Shri Sagar Bagul and whether the same was paid for purchase or a flat or otherwise given. The fact is that the evidences were not found to indict the assessee in receiving the on money

ANANT MATE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1674 To 1678/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2008-09 & 2010-11

reassessment proceeding u/s 153A. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in considering the original return filed before search for levy of penalty abated or non-est. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in holding that inadvertent mistakes can only