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

reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action

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

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 CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

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

32,668 closing WIP of Rs.396,30,86,527 CENVAT credit of\nRs.10,54,94,659) on cost of sales (construction) during the year and it is exclusive\nof finance cost. Further, It is noticed that the assessee had debited entire interest\nexpenses of Rs.32,30,50,317 in profit and loss account ie the same was netted\nagainst revenue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KIRTI SOLVEX LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reassessment proceedings to be without jurisdiction. The Co-ordinate Bench while holding so placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of ACIT Vs. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2013) 6 ITA No.1501/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2009-10 32 taxmann.com 162 (Bom). The relevant extract of the findings of the Tribunal are as under : “11. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ACIT

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 / 143(3) r.w.s. 254 / 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Revenue has filed Cross Objections and cross appeals against respective appeals of assessee. 2. Out of this bunch of appeals, against appeals filed by assessee in assessment years 2003-04 and 2008-09 the Revenue has filed Cross

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 / 143(3) r.w.s. 254 / 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Revenue has filed Cross Objections and cross appeals against respective appeals of assessee. 2. Out of this bunch of appeals, against appeals filed by assessee in assessment years 2003-04 and 2008-09 the Revenue has filed Cross

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 / 143(3) r.w.s. 254 / 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Revenue has filed Cross Objections and cross appeals against respective appeals of assessee. 2. Out of this bunch of appeals, against appeals filed by assessee in assessment years 2003-04 and 2008-09 the Revenue has filed Cross

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 / 143(3) r.w.s. 254 / 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Revenue has filed Cross Objections and cross appeals against respective appeals of assessee. 2. Out of this bunch of appeals, against appeals filed by assessee in assessment years 2003-04 and 2008-09 the Revenue has filed Cross

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 / 143(3) r.w.s. 254 / 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Revenue has filed Cross Objections and cross appeals against respective appeals of assessee. 2. Out of this bunch of appeals, against appeals filed by assessee in assessment years 2003-04 and 2008-09 the Revenue has filed Cross

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 / 143(3) r.w.s. 254 / 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Revenue has filed Cross Objections and cross appeals against respective appeals of assessee. 2. Out of this bunch of appeals, against appeals filed by assessee in assessment years 2003-04 and 2008-09 the Revenue has filed Cross

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. XIII. erred in not quashing the initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal hearing.” 6 M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited. 4. Shri

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD.,, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. XIII. erred in not quashing the initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal hearing.” 6 M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited. 4. Shri

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. XIII. erred in not quashing the initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal hearing.” 6 M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited. 4. Shri

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. XIII. erred in not quashing the initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal hearing.” 6 M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited. 4. Shri

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD.,, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. XIII. erred in not quashing the initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal hearing.” 6 M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited. 4. Shri

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

Sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment" In the case at hand, the AO does not say that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. All that the AO desires is 'examination of certain details pertaining to the amount paid by Petitioner to Crown'. That

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. FRESENIUS KABI INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2095/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

section 32(2), as amended by the Finance Act, 2001, would allow the unabsorbed depreciation allowance available in the assessment years 1997-98, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02 to be carried forward to the succeeding years and if any unabsorbed depreciation or part thereof could not be set off till the assessment year 2002-03 then it would

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

reassessment will be invalid because the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion in the original assessment, though he had not recorded his reasons. 5.7 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in IL&FS Investment Managers Ltd. vs ITO [2008] 298 ITR 32 has held as under:- "11. We have considered the submissions of both the counsel. In the facts