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

47,000\n90,000\n8\n2000\n2000000\nASHOK C\nASHOK D CHORDIYA\n2,45,000\n60,000\n9\n1500\n1500000\nASHOK C\nASHOK D CHORDIYA\n1,75,500\n45,000\n14.\nReferring to the papers enclosed with the chart submitted by the ACIT,\nCentral Circle 1(1), Pune, the details of which are placed at pages

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 in cases where assets belonging to the assessee or books of account or documents, which contain information pertaining to the assessee are found pursuant to a search conducted under Section 132 of the Act or requisition made under Section 132A of the Act, in respect of a person other than the assessee.” Accordingly, it is to submit that

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)

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)

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)

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

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

47 and the issuance of a notice under section 148(2) must assess or reassess: (i) 'such income'; and also

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

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be. In the present case, the Respondents do not state that any income

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

reassessment and computing the capital gains by invoking the provision of Section 50C of the Act, which was clearly not applicable in the assessees' case.” 8. The similar issue has been considered by ITAT Ranchi Bench in the case of Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO in ITA No. 327/RAN/2018 order dated 20.01.2020. The finding of the Tribunal in paragraph

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:

47 to 50 of the paper book, he submitted that the notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 28.09.2020 6 was on the basis of revised return filed on 30.06.2020. This itself confirms that the department had accepted the revised return as a valid return and therefore, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the return is not valid

SATYAPREM RAJABHAU DHOLE,BEED vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

47,776/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and (ii) saving bank interest of Rs.17,389/- as income from other sources. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the above addition(s) made by the Ld. AO as well as the validity of reassessment proceedings. Since, the assessment was complete

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

47)(v)of the Act and section 54-55 of the Transfer of Property Act observed that the agreement for sale between the assessee and the confirming parties cannot be considered as legal and valid transaction and such sale transaction can be recognized as valid and legal only by registered sale deed. Ld. AO thus concluded the reassessment

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

section 548 of the Act. it becomes evident that exemption uls.548(1) is subject to the assessee depositing the amount of unutilized capital gain in a designated bank account within the time provided uls.139 of the Act. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the appellant was a non-filer for the impugned

SHATRUNJAY PARKS AND RESORTS P LTD., ,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL, KOLHAPUR

Appeal is allowed

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

section 147, under such circumstances no further addition can be been made in view of Bombay High Court judgment in case of CIT V/s. Jet airways (I) Ltd 331 ITR 236 (BOM), we pray for deletion of ail such additions made. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the lower authorities have erred

NANDKUMAR NAMDEORAO DIWATE,KOLHAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1161/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nandkumar Namdeorao Diwate, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), 492, C-Ward, Kolhapur Opp. Main Rajaram Highschool, Juna Rajwada, Karveer, Kolhapur, Maharashtra-416001 Pan : Aeqpd 1603L Appellant Respondent

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. I, therefore, consider it to be a fit case for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and, as such, the said proceedings are initiated. 4. Issue Notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011-12.” 3 3. Against the said return of income, the assessment

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

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

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