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 under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 153D. the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148." We are in complete agreement

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

34,01,866/- (pages 187 and 235 of the paper book refers). 5.1 Referring to the amended provisions inserted with Finance Act, 2022 as an Explanation 3 to section 40(1)(ii) of the Act with retrospective effect from AY 2005-06 r.w.s. 155(18) of the Act, the Ld. AR further submitted that where an application is made

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)

34. Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while interpreting Section 14A of the Act or we have to go by the theory of apportionment. We are of the opinion that the dominant purpose

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)

34. Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while interpreting Section 14A of the Act or we have to go by the theory of apportionment. We are of the opinion that the dominant purpose

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)

34. Having clarified the aforesaid position, the first and foremost issue that falls for consideration is as to whether the dominant purpose test, which is pressed into service by the assessees would apply while interpreting Section 14A of the Act or we have to go by the theory of apportionment. We are of the opinion that the dominant purpose

SHANKAR NAGAPPA JADAGOUDA,KOLHAPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

reassessment proceedings as an appeal or revision and thereby seek relief in respect of items which were rejected earlier or in respect of items not claimed during the course of the original assessment proceedings. The judgment in V. Jaganmohan Rao's case (supra) dealt with the language of sections 22(2) and 34

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

reassessment proceedings as an appeal or revision and thereby seek relief in respect of items which were rejected earlier or in respect of items not claimed during the course of the original assessment proceedings. The judgment in V. Joganmohan Rao's case (supra) dealt with the language of sections 22(2) and 34

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

34 ITR 265 Bombay, Hon'ble Bombay High\nCourt concluded that the interest expenditure relating to the borrowed\ncapital is allowable u/s 36(l)(iii) of the Act. The relevant lines from the\npara 4 reads as under;\n\"that, while adjudicating the claim for deduction under section\n36(l)(iii) of the Act the nature of expense 0- whether

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

34,65,822/- and the same has no tax effect as the income of the assessee is fully exempt. The contentions of the assessee were not found to be acceptable by the Ld. AO. However, the Ld.AO vide his order dated 30/12/2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act assessed the income of the Assessee at Rs. NIL allowing excess

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

reassessment cannot be invalidated. It would be relevant to note that in Presidency Talkies Ltd Vs First Additional ITO (25 ITR 447). the Madras High Court held that there is no requirement in any of the provisions of the Act or any section that the reasons which induced the CIT to accord sanction to proceed u/s 34

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12, PUNE vs. VARUN JAIN, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamorecross Objection No.14/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2720/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Varun Jain, The Acit, P-024, Forest County, Kharadi, V Circle-12, Pune. Pune – 411014. S. Maharashtra. Pan:Aexpj0171J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2720/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Acit, Varun Jain, Circle-12, Pune. Vs. P-024, Forest County, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Maharashtra. Pan:Aexpj0171J Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Fenil Bhatt – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar - Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under C.O.No.14/Pun/2025 [A] & Ita No.2720/Pun/2024 [R]

reassessment order must be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify and add any further grounds of cross objections, if required.” 1.3 Both these appeals were heard together. C.O.No.14/PUN/2025 Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the Assessee submitted that Assessee has filed Return of Income for A.Y.2018-19 on 27.09.2018. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny

AZIZUDDIN LATIPHODDIN KAZI L/H OF DECEASED LATIPHODDIN AJIMODDIN KAZI,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, LATUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.835/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Azizuddin Latiphoddin Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Deceased Latiphoddin Vs Ward-4, Latur. Ajimoddin Kazi, . Block No.71, Kazi Nivas, Dastagir Galli, Tal. Ahmedpur, Latur – 413515. Pan: Aynpk5231E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P P Kulkarni – Ar Revenue By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/08/2023

34. Even if court hikes compensation for land and interest is awarded under Section 28 of the Act, upon such increased compensation, in the light of larger Bench judgment, the Department ITA No.835/PUN/2023 : A.Y.2013-14 Azizuddin Ltiphoddin Kazi (L/h of Deceased Latiphoddin Ajimoddin Kazi) [A] and Disbursing Authorities are bound to effect deduction of TDS’. On the interplay between

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

section under which the income is ultimately brought to tax does not render the reassessment invalid or without jurisdiction. In support of the above contention, the following decisions are relied (a) CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the scope of reassessment is to assess or reassess income

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

section under which the income is ultimately brought to tax does not render the reassessment invalid or without jurisdiction. In support of the above contention, the following decisions are relied (a) CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the scope of reassessment is to assess or reassess income

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

section under which the income is ultimately brought to tax does not render the reassessment invalid or without jurisdiction. In support of the above contention, the following decisions are relied (a) CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the scope of reassessment is to assess or reassess income

MOTIWALA AUTO PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD1(1), AURANABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

34,709/-, (ii)\ncontract receipt of Rs.15,50,547/-, (iii) rent of Rs.6,67,694/- (iv) interest on\ndebentures of Rs.13,630/-, (iv) professional/technical fee of Rs.3,52,696/; (v)\ninterest from Hyundai Motor India of Rs.82,500/-, (vi) sale/purchase of Motor\nVehicle of Rs.6,95,134/-, (vii) turnover from business of Rs.1,29,49,068/- and\n(viii) cash

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

section under which the income is ultimately brought to tax does\nnot render the reassessment invalid or without jurisdiction.\nIn support of the above contention, the following decisions are relied\n(a) CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC)\nThe Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the scope of reassessment is to\nassess or reassess

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

section under which the income is ultimately brought to tax does\nnot render the reassessment invalid or without jurisdiction.\nIn support of the above contention, the following decisions are relied\n(a) CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC)\nThe Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the scope of reassessment is to\nassess or reassess

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

section under which the income is ultimately brought to tax does\nnot render the reassessment invalid or without jurisdiction.\nIn support of the above contention, the following decisions are relied\n(a) CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC)\nThe Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the scope of reassessment is to\nassess or reassess