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

50% of the tax of Rs.1,86,60,746/- on under reported income of Rs.5,34,01,866/-) u/s 270A of the Act, vide order dated 30.03.2023 by observing as under : 3 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 ―3.7.1 As seen from the above reply of the assessee, the assessee has contented that while passing the assessment order

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:

50 lakhs. 148 notice was issued on 25.07.2022, which is beyond the period of three years. So admittedly, the approval has to be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General as defined under Section 151(ii). But, in the present case, the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner in terms

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:

50 lakhs. 148 notice was issued on 25.07.2022, which is beyond the period of three years. So admittedly, the approval has to be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General as defined under Section 151(ii). But, in the present case, the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner in terms

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

section 151 of the Act. The relevant findings and observations of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced below : “6. Findings & Decision 6.1. I have carefully gone through the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s.143(3), appellate order of CIT(A)-2, Pune, order of Hon‟ble ITAT, Pune, written submissions of the assessee and the documents furnished. 6.2. During the appellate

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM..OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

50% of tax determined for underreporting of income. 4.3. On perusal of sec 270A, it is observed that the sub- section 2 of sec 270A prescribes the persons falling under the category of under reported his income and one of the clause (c) of sub-section (2) prescribed that "the income reassessed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE vs. ZEAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

50% of the amount of tax of Rs. 1,81,27,447/- payable on under-reporting income of Rs.6,04,24,824/- as per the provisions of 270A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the penalty of Rs. 90,63,723/- imposed by the Ld.AO u/s 270A of the Act. Before

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50,000/- under section 69A.\n4)\nThe reassessment may be cancelled.\n5)\nThe addition of Rs.56,50,000/- be deleted

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50,000/- under section 69A.\n4) The reassessment may be cancelled.\n5) The addition of Rs.56,50,000/- be deleted

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:

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

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. 11. The assessees case would fall only in clause (g) of Section 270A(2) of the Act as the ultimate assessment had the effect of reducing the loss retuned by the assessee. It was further pointed out that under reporting of income has got certain exceptions

MADHURI DHANANJAUY MARATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1639 & 1640/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Smt. Madhuri Dhananjay Marathe, 3, Yashodhara Apartment, Chinchkhed Road, At Post Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka- Niphad, Nashik Pan : Amjpm4024B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

50,000/- and disallowance of labour charges of Rs.2,72,200/-. It may be pointed out herein itself that no addition was made on account of reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act. 6. Before CIT(A), the said issue was raised and reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay

MADHURI DHANANJAUY MARATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1639 & 1640/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Smt. Madhuri Dhananjay Marathe, 3, Yashodhara Apartment, Chinchkhed Road, At Post Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka- Niphad, Nashik Pan : Amjpm4024B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

50,000/- and disallowance of labour charges of Rs.2,72,200/-. It may be pointed out herein itself that no addition was made on account of reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act. 6. Before CIT(A), the said issue was raised and reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay

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

50% of the Agreement value i.e. Rs.85 lakhs and 100% of the cash element i.e. Rs.1.70 crores in her hand and computed the income from capital gains and ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 14 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors declared total income of Rs.2,04,91,850/- on 13.09.2010. Against the income from capital gains computed at Rs.2

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

50% of the Agreement value i.e. Rs.85 lakhs and 100% of the cash element i.e. Rs.1.70 crores in her hand and computed the income from capital gains and ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 14 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors declared total income of Rs.2,04,91,850/- on 13.09.2010. Against the income from capital gains computed at Rs.2

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

50% of the Agreement value i.e. Rs.85 lakhs and 100% of the cash element i.e. Rs.1.70 crores in her hand and computed the income from capital gains and ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 14 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors declared total income of Rs.2,04,91,850/- on 13.09.2010. Against the income from capital gains computed at Rs.2

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

50% of the Agreement value i.e. Rs.85 lakhs and 100% of the cash element i.e. Rs.1.70 crores in her hand and computed the income from capital gains and ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 14 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors declared total income of Rs.2,04,91,850/- on 13.09.2010. Against the income from capital gains computed at Rs.2

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

50% of the Agreement value i.e. Rs.85 lakhs and 100% of the cash element i.e. Rs.1.70 crores in her hand and computed the income from capital gains and ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 14 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors declared total income of Rs.2,04,91,850/- on 13.09.2010. Against the income from capital gains computed at Rs.2

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

50% of the Agreement value i.e. Rs.85 lakhs and 100% of the cash element i.e. Rs.1.70 crores in her hand and computed the income from capital gains and ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 14 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors declared total income of Rs.2,04,91,850/- on 13.09.2010. Against the income from capital gains computed at Rs.2