DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

The appeal stands dismissed

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

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

The appeal stands dismissed

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

ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

548 (Pune)]\nb. Regency Mahavir Properties [89 Taxmann.com 444(Mum)]\nc. Vineet Ranawat [88 Taxmann.com 428 (Pune)\n4.7] In view of the above decisions, the assessee submits that the\naddition made is not justified at all. Further, as clarified above, the\nlearned A.O. has not brought on record any corroborative evidence in\nsupport of his case He is simply making

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

548 (Pune)]\nb. Regency Mahavir Properties [89 Taxmann.com 444(Mum)]\nc. Vineet Ranawat [88 Taxmann.com 428 (Pune)\n4.7] In view of the above decisions, the assessee submits that the\naddition made is not justified at all. Further, as clarified above, the\nlearned A.O. has not brought on record any corroborative evidence in\nsupport of his case He is simply making

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

548 (Pune)]\nb. Regency Mahavir Properties [89 Taxmann.com 444(Mum)]\nc. Vineet Ranawat [88 Taxmann.com 428 (Pune)\n4.7] In view of the above decisions, the assessee submits that the\naddition made is not justified at all. Further, as clarified above, the\nlearned A.O. has not brought on record any corroborative evidence in\nsupport of his case He is simply making

THE GOVERNMENT ITI BASMATHNAGAR IMC SOCIETY ,HINGOLI vs. EXEMPTION WARD , NANDED

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2969 & 2972/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Government Iti Vs. Income Tax Officer, Basmathnagar Imc Society, Exemption Ward, Opp To Navoday Vidyalay, Range 179, Nanded Basmat Parbhani Road, Basmathnagar, Dist. Hingoli 431512 Maharashtra Pan : Aabtg2544A Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings and the order are void and bad in law since the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is not empowered to issue notice under Section 148 under the newly introduced regime of faceless assessment and it should have been issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre/FAO 6. The Id. AO erred in invoking provisions of 69A in assessee's case since

SAGAR SUBHASH WEDHANE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.191/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sagar Subhash Wedhane, Vs. Ito, Nashik. 75, Midc, Bosch Limited, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aavpw1338A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.01.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,61,548/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Under-Reporting In Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

section 270A of the IT Act in the notice, the assessee was not in a position to reply for the same, because until and unless the assessee knows as to under which limb the penalty is going to be imposed, he is unable to file his specific reply regarding that particular limb which is attracted in his case

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

548, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that when the claim of deduction u/s.35AB is undisturbed in the first assessment year of the claim of deduction u/s.35AB of the Act, the AO cannot disturb the similar claim in the subsequent years. On merits of the provisions of section 35AB of the Act, Ld. Counsel analysed the provisions of the said

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

548, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that when the claim of deduction u/s.35AB is undisturbed in the first assessment year of the claim of deduction u/s.35AB of the Act, the AO cannot disturb the similar claim in the subsequent years. On merits of the provisions of section 35AB of the Act, Ld. Counsel analysed the provisions of the said

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

548, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that when the claim of deduction u/s.35AB is undisturbed in the first assessment year of the claim of deduction u/s.35AB of the Act, the AO cannot disturb the similar claim in the subsequent years. On merits of the provisions of section 35AB of the Act, Ld. Counsel analysed the provisions of the said