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

41,25,06,638 - Rs.1,39,38,45,890) after adjusting the incremental liability that may arise on disallowing health and education Cess. He, therefore, submitted that there is no basis for holding that the assessee has under-reported its income or done any act without good faith and due diligence and hence the provisions of section 270A

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)

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 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)

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)

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

SACHIN MOHANLAL CHORDIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as we do not intend to adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3280 & 3281/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sachin Mohanlal Chordia, V The Income Tax Officer, B-101, Isha Emerald, S. Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewdi, Kondhwa Road, Marketyard, Pune- 411037. Pan: Aanpc8554C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Amit Bobade & Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Are Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 For Ay 2016-17, 2017-18 Passed On 22/10/2025 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders U/S 147 Rws 144 Dated 11/05/2023 & 23/05/2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

41,070/-. Assessee had filed Original Return u/s 139 for AY 2017-18 declaring Total Income at 27,46,960/-. 4. The Assessing Officer had received information regarding deposits made by assessee in the account maintained with Shri. Renukamata Multi State Urban Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Based on the information the AO issued notice u/s 148. The dates

SACHIN MOHANLAL CHORDIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as we do not intend to adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3280 & 3281/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sachin Mohanlal Chordia, V The Income Tax Officer, B-101, Isha Emerald, S. Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewdi, Kondhwa Road, Marketyard, Pune- 411037. Pan: Aanpc8554C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Amit Bobade & Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Are Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 For Ay 2016-17, 2017-18 Passed On 22/10/2025 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders U/S 147 Rws 144 Dated 11/05/2023 & 23/05/2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

41,070/-. Assessee had filed Original Return u/s 139 for AY 2017-18 declaring Total Income at 27,46,960/-. 4. The Assessing Officer had received information regarding deposits made by assessee in the account maintained with Shri. Renukamata Multi State Urban Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. Based on the information the AO issued notice u/s 148. The dates

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PRIMA PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 997 & 998/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2009-10

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer completed assessment assessing total income of assessee at Rs.4,20,14,270/- by making addition of Rs.35,53,766/- with the same reasoning. Aggrieved with both the additions i.e. Rs.83,30,151/- in A.Y.2006-07 and Rs.35,53,766/- in A.Y.2009-10, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) for both the assessment years. 6. During

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PRIMA PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 997 & 998/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2009-10

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer completed assessment assessing total income of assessee at Rs.4,20,14,270/- by making addition of Rs.35,53,766/- with the same reasoning. Aggrieved with both the additions i.e. Rs.83,30,151/- in A.Y.2006-07 and Rs.35,53,766/- in A.Y.2009-10, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) for both the assessment years. 6. During

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PRIMA PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 is

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2161 & 2162/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09

reassessment proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, Assessing Officer assessed total income of assessee at Rs.4,02,98,220/- and made the said addition of Rs.87,16,195/-. A.Ys.2007-08 & 2008-09 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PRIMA PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2007-08 is

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2161 & 2162/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09

reassessment proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, Assessing Officer assessed total income of assessee at Rs.4,02,98,220/- and made the said addition of Rs.87,16,195/-. A.Ys.2007-08 & 2008-09 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the issue

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

41,920/- aggregating to Rs.5,90,35,236/- 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

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

41,920/- aggregating to Rs.5,90,35,236/- 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

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

41,920/- aggregating to Rs.5,90,35,236/- 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

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

41,920/- aggregating to Rs.5,90,35,236/- 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

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

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 8,96,41,183/- as excess "Share Premium" under Section

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 8,96,41,183/- as excess "Share Premium" under Section

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 8,96,41,183/- as excess "Share Premium" under Section