JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

reassess the income of other person in accordance with provisions of section 153A of the Act. Section thus, very clearly lays down the procedure to be followed when during the course of search on a person any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing, or any books of account or documents or any information contained therein pertains

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

reassess the income of other person in accordance with provisions of section 153A of the Act. Section thus, very clearly lays down the procedure to be followed when during the course of search on a person any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing, or any books of account or documents or any information contained therein pertains

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

reassess the income of other person in accordance with provisions of section 153A of the Act. Section thus, very clearly lays down the procedure to be followed when during the course of search on a person any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing, or any books of account or documents or any information contained therein pertains

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

reassess the income of other person in accordance with provisions of section 153A of the Act. Section thus, very clearly lays down the procedure to be followed when during the course of search on a person any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing, or any books of account or documents or any information contained therein pertains

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

reassess the income of other person in accordance with provisions of section 153A of the Act. Section thus, very clearly lays down the procedure to be followed when during the course of search on a person any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing, or any books of account or documents or any information contained therein pertains

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

reassess the income of other person in accordance with provisions of section 153A of the Act. Section thus, very clearly lays down the procedure to be followed when during the course of search on a person any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing, or any books of account or documents or any information contained therein pertains

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

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

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

KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2611 & 2612/Pun/2012 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

reassessment proceedings is the additional legal issue raised in particular for adjudication vide the appeal ITA No.2612/PUN/2012. 2. Assessee raised various grounds originally. However, during the proceedings before us, assessee filed concise grounds and the said grounds for A.Y. 2002-03 are as under : “Ground of appeal No.1: The Ld. AO erred in CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy

KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DCIT, RANGE 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2611 & 2612/Pun/2012 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

reassessment proceedings is the additional legal issue raised in particular for adjudication vide the appeal ITA No.2612/PUN/2012. 2. Assessee raised various grounds originally. However, during the proceedings before us, assessee filed concise grounds and the said grounds for A.Y. 2002-03 are as under : “Ground of appeal No.1: The Ld. AO erred in CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy

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

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

35 [sub-section (2) of section 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

35 [sub-section (2) of section 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

35 [sub-section (2) of section 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

35 [sub-section (2) of section 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under sub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to section 144] to show cause why the assessment should

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

35 [sub-section (2) of\nsection 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under\nsub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for\nthe making of the return or by the notice under the first\nproviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to\nsection 144] to show cause why the assessment should

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

35 [sub-section (2) of\nsection 115WD or sub-section (1) of section 142 or under\nsub-section (1) of section 115WH or under section 148 for\nthe making of the return or by the notice under the first\nproviso to section 115WF or under the first proviso to\nsection 144] to show cause why the assessment should

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)

1). Therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v: Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297/64 Taxman 442, the assessee could not be permitted to claim the benefit of closing favourable to the assessee. (Para 11] Therefore, in assessment proceedings under section 1534, which are for the benefit

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)

1). Therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v: Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297/64 Taxman 442, the assessee could not be permitted to claim the benefit of closing favourable to the assessee. (Para 11] Therefore, in assessment proceedings under section 1534, which are for the benefit