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

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has\nbeen specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the\nlast authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under\nsection 132A of the Act, was executed.”\n37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s\n127 is assigned in favour

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has\nbeen specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the\nlast authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under\nsection 132A of the Act, was executed.”\n37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s\n127 is assigned in favour

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has\nbeen specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the\nlast authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under\nsection 132A of the Act, was executed.”\n37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s\n127 is assigned in favour

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

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has\nbeen specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the\nlast authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under\nsection 132A of the Act, was executed.”\n37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s\n127 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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has\nbeen specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the\nlast authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under\nsection 132A of the Act, was executed.”\n37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s\n127 is assigned in favour

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

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has\nbeen specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the\nlast authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under\nsection 132A of the Act, was executed.”\n\n37.\nThe Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s\n127 is assigned

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

reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this\nillustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under section 148 of the new\nregime will end on 18 August 2022.\n22.\nHe submitted that it is abundantly clear from the above decision that the time\nbetween the issue of original notice u/s 148 under

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