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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

35(2AB) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,63,91,741/-. We find before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of the assessment on the ground that the same has been passed on a non existing entity. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC not only directed the Assessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

reassessment proceedings can be initiated under the provisions of the section 153C of the Act of the non-searched person. Here in this case as noted above the information of alleged bogus LTCG was gathered from the search of Evergreen Enterprises and other searches of entry operators. Thus, the only recourse for the AO was to initiate 153C

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

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)

35, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 50/2012 and D.B Income tax Appeal No 7/2016) wherein the Hon'ble Court upheld the proposition that returns of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A are a consequence of search action taken under section 132 on the assessee These proceedings are analogous to proceedings under section 147 i.e. reassessment

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)

35, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 50/2012 and D.B Income tax Appeal No 7/2016) wherein the Hon'ble Court upheld the proposition that returns of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A are a consequence of search action taken under section 132 on the assessee These proceedings are analogous to proceedings under section 147 i.e. reassessment

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)

35, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 50/2012 and D.B Income tax Appeal No 7/2016) wherein the Hon'ble Court upheld the proposition that returns of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A are a consequence of search action taken under section 132 on the assessee These proceedings are analogous to proceedings under section 147 i.e. reassessment

SAGAR BABANRAO AWATADE,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.79/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section, record his reasons for doing so." 9. By going through the aforesaid definition it is abundantly clear that before opening any reassessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has to record reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. Now coming back to the case we have to analyze as to whether

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]

Section 10(35). overlooking the evidence obtained during the survey on JM Financial Asset Management Ltd., which confirmed violations of SEBI regulations and established that the mutual fund used Unit Premium Reserves to declare dividends, in violation of regulatory norms. b. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that these are allegations

MADHURI DHANANJAUY MARATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), NASHIK

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1639 & 1640/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Smt. Madhuri Dhananjay Marathe, 3, Yashodhara Apartment, Chinchkhed Road, At Post Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka- Niphad, Nashik Pan : Amjpm4024B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

35,000/- were shown; but the assessee had failed to explain source of the income. The Assessing Officer recorded reasons for re-opening of assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee vide letter dated 26.12.2014 stated that the return of income filed on 10.03.2011 may be treated

MADHURI DHANANJAUY MARATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), NASHIK

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1639 & 1640/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Smt. Madhuri Dhananjay Marathe, 3, Yashodhara Apartment, Chinchkhed Road, At Post Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka- Niphad, Nashik Pan : Amjpm4024B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

35,000/- were shown; but the assessee had failed to explain source of the income. The Assessing Officer recorded reasons for re-opening of assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee vide letter dated 26.12.2014 stated that the return of income filed on 10.03.2011 may be treated

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

35,236/- was assessed to tax. The assessee claimed the entire business income as exempt u/s. 10(29) of the Act. 2.1 Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 31-01-2005, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed partial relief to the assessee by allowing benefit of unabsorbed depreciation

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

35,236/- was assessed to tax. The assessee claimed the entire business income as exempt u/s. 10(29) of the Act. 2.1 Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 31-01-2005, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed partial relief to the assessee by allowing benefit of unabsorbed depreciation

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

35,236/- was assessed to tax. The assessee claimed the entire business income as exempt u/s. 10(29) of the Act. 2.1 Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 31-01-2005, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed partial relief to the assessee by allowing benefit of unabsorbed depreciation

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

35,236/- was assessed to tax. The assessee claimed the entire business income as exempt u/s. 10(29) of the Act. 2.1 Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 31-01-2005, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed partial relief to the assessee by allowing benefit of unabsorbed depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. SANDEEP BIPINCHANDRA JHAVERI, MUMBAI

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

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

35,00,000/- (50% of Rs.4.70 Crores) on the basis of documents seized from Abhishek S. Jhaveri & also on the basis of his statement, which is deleted by LD CIT(A) by giving specific finding for granting relief which are subject matter of present appeal filed by the Revenue. 9. As regards to the ground no.1 & 2, we find that

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

reassessment proceedings and the same being jurisdictional issue we will first take up this ground for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having source of income from Agriculture and Poultry. Regular return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 furnished on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of ₹11,40,448 and Agricultural income

SAVITA MITKARI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

reassessed under Section 143(3) read with\nSection 147. The Assessing Officer made additions of *10,00,000 as\nunexplained unsecured loan under Section 68 and 17,35

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CLARION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

reassessment proceedings are not valid?” The Hon‟ble High Court by referring to decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh Vs. CIT reported in 35 ITR 1 (SC) which held that the word 'information' in section

CLARION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

reassessment proceedings are not valid?” The Hon‟ble High Court by referring to decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh Vs. CIT reported in 35 ITR 1 (SC) which held that the word 'information' in section