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

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

42,500/- each therein which stand upheld in the CIT(A)’s very much elaborate discussions in issue. 3.1. It is in this clinching factual backdrop of the case that we hardly find any merit to sustain both these reopenings/re- assessments. This is for the precise reason that the foregoing unsecured loans and advances setting sec.148/147 mechanism in 3 ITA.Nos

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

42,500/- each therein which stand upheld in the CIT(A)’s very much elaborate discussions in issue. 3.1. It is in this clinching factual backdrop of the case that we hardly find any merit to sustain both these reopenings/re- assessments. This is for the precise reason that the foregoing unsecured loans and advances setting sec.148/147 mechanism in 3 ITA.Nos

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

42,500/- each therein which stand upheld in the CIT(A)’s very much elaborate discussions in issue. 3.1. It is in this clinching factual backdrop of the case that we hardly find any merit to sustain both these reopenings/re- assessments. This is for the precise reason that the foregoing unsecured loans and advances setting sec.148/147 mechanism in 3 ITA.Nos

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

42,32,668 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

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

42,650/-. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee from 5th to 7th February, 2020 during which certain registers were impounded containing the undisclosed professional receipts according to which such undisclosed receipts for the year under consideration were Rs.49,64,120/-. When confronted the assessee admitted that the receipts contained

KALPESH RATILAL GARDHARIA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD- 2(3), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 68. 5. Additional Ground though raised before CIT(A) not considered Without prejudicial to above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee being entitled to claim set-off of the loss of Rs. Rs. 40,42,043 in the reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. MARSH FINCOM PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1342/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Aurangabad. Vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Gold Crest, Ns Road No.10, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan : Aabck0760B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Quashing Proceedings U/S. 153A In Respect Of Assessee Where The Assessee’S Case Was Covered Under Section 132 Of The Act Dated 20.08.2014. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Made

42,00,000/- were offered to tax for the year under consideration being not genuine, and, therefore, the balance amount of Rs.3,20,00,000/- was added by the AO to the income of the assessee on the basis of statement of director of the company 4 recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act. The AO completed the assessment

M/S. VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

42. Thus, the date & year of approval of the project become relevant to not only to the projects of section 80IB(10) of the Act but also to such projects cum the AMT case covered u/s 115JC of the Act. The doctrine of impossibility becomes relevant here too. If the assessee is aware of the obligations of the Statute

VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

42. Thus, the date & year of approval of the project become relevant to not only to the projects of section 80IB(10) of the Act but also to such projects cum the AMT case covered u/s 115JC of the Act. The doctrine of impossibility becomes relevant here too. If the assessee is aware of the obligations of the Statute

DARSHAN SAMPATLALJI GATAGAT,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Reassessment The Learned AO failed to provide the appellant with the reasons recorded for issuing the notice under Section 148 during the assessment proceedings. This omission deprived the appellant of the opportunity to challenge the proceedings at an appropriate stage, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 5. Erroneous Addition Under Section 69A The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming

DARSHAN SAMPATLALJI GATAGAT,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Reassessment The Learned AO failed to provide the appellant with the reasons recorded for issuing the notice under Section 148 during the assessment proceedings. This omission deprived the appellant of the opportunity to challenge the proceedings at an appropriate stage, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 5. Erroneous Addition Under Section 69A The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under section 132A of the Act, was executed.” 37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s 127 is assigned in favour

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under section 132A of the Act, was executed.” 37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s 127 is assigned in favour

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under section 132A of the Act, was executed.” 37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s 127 is assigned in favour

RAMLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under section 132A of the Act, was executed.” 37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s 127 is assigned in favour

RAMANLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under section 132A of the Act, was executed.” 37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s 127 is assigned in favour