ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

2. Pune.\nSir/Madam.\nSub: Sharing of Information in the case of Shri Sachin Nahar- reg.\nRef: This office letter No. Pa/DCIT/CC 1(1)/Info./2019-20 dated 10.06.2019\nReference may kindly be made to this office letter No. Pn/DCIT/CC\n1(1)/Info./2019-20 dated 10/06/2019 vide which information about the cash loan was\nprovided to you. In the case of Shri

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

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 of the Act do not apply 5 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

45 of the Act. From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the transfer of the property took place in the year 2001 when the provision of Section 50C of the Act was not in existence. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the reassessment and computing the capital gains by invoking the provision of Section

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

2. In the case at hand, the AO of the assessee received information which revealed that the Assessee-Respondent had received cash payments over and above the disclosed sale amount in a land transaction with the members of the Konkani Family. Accordingly, notices were issued to assessee-appellant under Section 148 of the Act for reassessment of income, which came

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:

45 (Chennai-Trib.), he submitted that unless a person is considered to have under-reported his income as contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 270A, he cannot be found to have attracted penalty under section 270A as envisaged for 'under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting'. He accordingly submitted that the order

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

45 of the Income Tax Rules. 5. It is observed from Form No.35 of the assessee in which, in Column No.12.1 assessee has referred to the letter dated 02.09.2022 of ITO(TDS), Ward-2, Pune. Nowhere in Form No.35 assessee has referred to order under section 201 of the Act. Thus, it is clear that assessee had filed appeal before

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

45 of the Income Tax Rules. 5. It is observed from Form No.35 of the assessee in which, in Column No.12.1 assessee has referred to the letter dated 02.09.2022 of ITO(TDS), Ward-2, Pune. Nowhere in Form No.35 assessee has referred to order under section 201 of the Act. Thus, it is clear that assessee had filed appeal before

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

45 of the Income Tax Rules. 5. It is observed from Form No.35 of the assessee in which, in Column No.12.1 assessee has referred to the letter dated 02.09.2022 of ITO(TDS), Ward-2, Pune. Nowhere in Form No.35 assessee has referred to order under section 201 of the Act. Thus, it is clear that assessee had filed appeal before

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

45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also, the issue was that reasons for reopening was against the claim of assessee u/s.54E of the Act but thereafter Hon’ble Court has observed that section 54E of the Act is neither applicable nor sought to be applied by the assessee and also Hon’ble Court observing as follows : “2. The petitioner

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

45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also, the issue was that reasons for reopening was against the claim of assessee u/s.54E of the Act but thereafter Hon’ble Court has observed that section 54E of the Act is neither applicable nor sought to be applied by the assessee and also Hon’ble Court observing as follows : “2. The petitioner

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

45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also, the issue was that reasons for reopening was against the claim of assessee u/s.54E of the Act but thereafter Hon’ble Court has observed that section 54E of the Act is neither applicable nor sought to be applied by the assessee and also Hon’ble Court observing as follows : “2. The petitioner

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)

reassessment’ used in this section has to be understood in the context of section 153A alone. The word 'assessment’ is used in a number of provisions in a comprehensive sense and if can comprehend the whole procedure for ascertaining and imposing liability upon the taxpayer and the machinery for enforcement thereof. The concept of expression ‘assessment’ is used

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)

reassessment’ used in this section has to be understood in the context of section 153A alone. The word 'assessment’ is used in a number of provisions in a comprehensive sense and if can comprehend the whole procedure for ascertaining and imposing liability upon the taxpayer and the machinery for enforcement thereof. The concept of expression ‘assessment’ is used

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)

reassessment’ used in this section has to be understood in the context of section 153A alone. The word 'assessment’ is used in a number of provisions in a comprehensive sense and if can comprehend the whole procedure for ascertaining and imposing liability upon the taxpayer and the machinery for enforcement thereof. The concept of expression ‘assessment’ is used

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, 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

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

45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also, the\nissue was that reasons for reopening was against the claim of\nassessee u/s.54E of the Act but thereafter Hon'ble Court has\nobserved that section 54E of the Act is neither applicable nor\nsought to be applied by the assessee and also Hon'ble Court\nheld against the Revenue and quashed

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

45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also, the\nissue was that reasons for reopening was against the claim of\nassessee u/s.54E of the Act but thereafter Hon'ble Court has\nobserved that section 54E of the Act is neither applicable nor\nsought to be applied by the assessee and also Hon'ble Court\nheld against the Revenue and quashed

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

45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also, the\nissue was that reasons for reopening was against the claim of\nassessee u/s.54E of the Act but thereafter Hon'ble Court has\nobserved that section 54E of the Act is neither applicable nor\nsought to be applied by the assessee and also Hon'ble Court\n25\nITA Nos.1121 to 1126/PUN/2024\nRajarshi