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

AMDOCS DEVELOPMENT CENTRE INDIA LLP (SUCCESSOR OF AMDOCS DEVELOPMENT CENTRE INDIA P LTD.),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 376/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

Section 292B of the Act. The Court observed that this provisions condones the invalidity which arises merely by mistake, defect or omission in a notice, if in substance and effect it is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Since no valid notice was served on the assessee to reassess

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. AMDOCS DEVELOPMENT CENTRE INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 376/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

Section 292B of the Act. The Court observed that this provisions condones the invalidity which arises merely by mistake, defect or omission in a notice, if in substance and effect it is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Since no valid notice was served on the assessee to reassess

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

292B, even if, the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings." 4. We may also observe that in a recent decision of this Court in Uber Indio Systems (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income [Writ Petition (L.) No. 23562 of 2024]/[2024] 168 taxmann.com 200 (Bombay), in similar circumstances, this Court has allowed the writ petition filed

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

Section 292B of the IT Act. The Court\nalso noticed the peculiar facts obtained in Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra), which\nalone had led to the Supreme Court upholding the assessment made, albeit in the\nname of an entity that had ceased to exist.\n29. Accordingly, after considering the above facts and circumstances and the law,\nwe are satisfied that

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

Section 292B of the IT Act. The Court also noticed the peculiar facts obtained in Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra), which alone had led to the Supreme Court upholding the assessment made, albeit in the name of an entity that had ceased to exist. 29. Accordingly, after considering the above facts and circumstances and the law, we are satisfied that

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPN. PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

Section 292B of the IT Act. The Court also noticed the peculiar facts obtained in Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra), which alone had led to the Supreme Court upholding the assessment made, albeit in the name of an entity that had ceased to exist. 29. Accordingly, after considering the above facts and circumstances and the law, we are satisfied that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

reassessment order ought to have been quashed. 13. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee before us submitted that in pursuance of Section 144C(1) read with section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is necessarily required to forward a draft assessment order, in the first instance to the assessee, if he proposes to make any variation

KUBIX REALTIES LLP,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -14 PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1260/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

section 292B of the Income-tax Act.” 13. In view of the settled legal position, we hold that the order passed by the CIT(A) is illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, accordingly set-aside. The reassessment

NILONS ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. JCTI RANGE 2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 292B of the IT Act. The Court also noticed the peculiar facts obtained in Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra), which alone had led to the Supreme Court upholding the assessment made, albeit in the name of an entity that had ceased to exist. 29. Accordingly, after considering the above facts and circumstances and the law, we are satisfied that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

Section 292B of the IT Act. The Court\nalso noticed the peculiar facts obtained in Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra), which\nalone had led to the Supreme Court upholding the assessment made, albeit in the\nname of an entity that had ceased to exist.\n29.\nAccordingly, after considering the above facts and circumstances and the law,\nwe are satisfied that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

Section 292B of the IT Act. The Court\nalso noticed the peculiar facts obtained in Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra), which\nalone had led to the Supreme Court upholding the assessment made, albeit in the\nname of an entity that had ceased to exist.\n29. Accordingly, after considering the above facts and circumstances and the law,\nwe are satisfied that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

Section 292B of the IT Act. The Court\nalso noticed the peculiar facts obtained in Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra), which\nalone had led to the Supreme Court upholding the assessment made, albeit in the\nname of an entity that had ceased to exist.\n29. Accordingly, after considering the above facts and circumstances and the law,\nwe are satisfied that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

Section 292B of the IT Act. The Court\nalso noticed the peculiar facts obtained in Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra), which\nalone had led to the Supreme Court upholding the assessment made, albeit in the\nname of an entity that had ceased to exist.\n29.\nAccordingly, after considering the above facts and circumstances and the law,\nwe are satisfied that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI vs. LATE SHRI SUBHASH SHANKAR WAINGANKAR, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI RUSHIKESH SUBHASH WAINGANKAR , RATNAGIRI

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the legal

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

292B or 292BB of the Act. This is so as the requirement of issuing a notice in the name of correct person is the foundational requirement to acquire jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. This is evident from section 148 of the Act, which requires that before a proceeding can be taken up for reassessment

ANIL BANSILAL LODHA,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK - 1, NASHIK

In the result, it is directed that the order passed under section 263 be set aside

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessment or recomputation under section-147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1),— (a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be\npassed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-\nBA.\"\n11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of\nlaw that the approval under Section 153D

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144- BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144- BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D