M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set\naside.\n3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-\nAppeal has erred in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs\n8,96,41,183/- as excess \"Share Premium\" under Section 56

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

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 8,96,41,183/- as excess "Share Premium" under Section 56

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 8,96,41,183/- as excess "Share Premium" under Section 56

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 8,96,41,183/- as excess "Share Premium" under Section 56

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT- Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 8,96,41,183/- as excess "Share Premium" under Section 56

SHRI GURUDEV CHANDRASHEKHAR KARANTH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CIT(DRP-3), MUMBAI

In the result, Grounds Number 1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar V Income Tax Department Karanth, S. Cit(Drp-3), Mumbai-1. 21 Cozy Retreat, Sindh Colony, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Cgnpk6203J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.C.Malakar – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.12.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19, Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 20.12.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 6 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee’s status is Non Resident for AY 2018-19. 2.1 The assessee had purchased along with his wife Smt.Isha Bhatt Flat Number 4101, Building Alpine, Thakur Village Road, Phase-1, Samata Nagar Kandivali Mumbai, which was registered on 09/01/2018. The Purchase consideration paid was Rs.1,82,91,500/- but the Valuation

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

56,25,041/-\nWIP of Rs.396,30,86,527/-being borrowing cost is to be included in WIP as on\n31/03/2014) Incurred by the assessee as borrowing cost which is\ndisproportionately claimed is disallowed and added back to total income of\nassessee. Penalty proceeding under section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961\nfor concealment of income

VIKAS RATANLAL JAIN,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.648/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.32, Station Road, Aurangabad. Vedant Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Afapj5847B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nandkishor S. Daga & Shri Nitesh N. Daga Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ctt(A) Along With The Learned Ao Has Erred In Contending That Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Is Applicable To All The Immovable Properties Even If Such Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade. As Mentioned In The Explanation To The Aforesaid Section, Property Means The ‘Capital Asset’ Of The Assessee & Hence If Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade, Provisions Of Such 2 Section Are Not Applicable To Such Purchase. Reliance Is Placed On The Various Judicial Precedents Wherein It Has Been Held That The Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Are Not Applicable To Stock In Trade But Is Applicable Only To Capital Assets:  Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (Huf)

section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and reframe the assessment order after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Vide order dated 30.08.2019, the Assessing Officer 4 completed the reassessment

AZIZUDDIN LATIPHODDIN KAZI L/H OF DECEASED LATIPHODDIN AJIMODDIN KAZI,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, LATUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.835/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Azizuddin Latiphoddin Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Deceased Latiphoddin Vs Ward-4, Latur. Ajimoddin Kazi, . Block No.71, Kazi Nivas, Dastagir Galli, Tal. Ahmedpur, Latur – 413515. Pan: Aynpk5231E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P P Kulkarni – Ar Revenue By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/08/2023

56(2)(viii) of the Act as against the Revenue’s contentions that the Aurangabad bench of the very hon’ble jurisdictional high court has taken a divergent view against the taxpayer in Shivajirao and Others Vs. State Writ Petition No.5042/2013 dated 27.08.2013(supra). 6. Faced with the situation, we are of the opinion that it is the Bombay

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. SURYACHANDRA LALMANI DUBEY, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings. The AO made addition of Rs.2,04,80,489/-. Aggrieved by the Order the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The 2 Suryachandra Lalmani Dubey [R] Ld.CIT(A) held that the AO had recorded the reasons for reopening as “needs to be verified”, which is outside the purview of section 147.Accordingly,Ld.CIT(A) allowed the Legal ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. MARSH FINCOM PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1342/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Aurangabad. Vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Gold Crest, Ns Road No.10, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan : Aabck0760B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Quashing Proceedings U/S. 153A In Respect Of Assessee Where The Assessee’S Case Was Covered Under Section 132 Of The Act Dated 20.08.2014. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Made

reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material collected during the search and other material which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well as the undisclosed income.” In view of the binding nature of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High court, I hold that since original assessment

AHAMAD BIN MUBARAK CHAUOSE,NANDED vs. ITO, WARD (1), NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1545/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ahamad Bin Mubarak V The Income Tax Officer, Chauose, S Ward-(1), Nanded. H.No.1-7-1349, Peerburhan Nagar, Nanded – 431506. Maharashtra. Pan: Alzpc8261D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(A), Kanpur Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 18.10.2024 For The A.Y.2012-13 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated

reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 153(2) of the Act, and hence, the assessment framed on 09/03/2016 is time-barred and bad in law That the addition of Rs. 17,58,000/- towards unexplained cash deposits is unjustified, arbitrary and based on conjectures, particularly when the Appellant's gross receipts were already disclosed

SHARAD BHASKARRAO GAIKWAD,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.918/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sharad Bhaskarrao The Income Tax Officer, Gaikwad, V Nashik. T No.1, Vanai Apartment, S Gangapur Road, Behind Kulswamini Apartment, Nashik – 422005. Pan: Adspg2339R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Assessee By Revenue By Shri Sourabho Nayak – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 02.05.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.02.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A]

56,277/- Claimed 2.3 Thus, during the assessment proceedings, AO noted that in the revised return of income, assessee had claimed less deduction u/s.Chapter VIA as compared to his earlier Return 3 Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A] of Income. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A(9) of the Act. The AO passed assessment order on 22.02.2022 levying a penalty u/s.270A

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 40A(3) of the Act and unsecured loans taken from Akash Foods and Feeds for which Assessing Officer was satisfied with the reply filed by the assessee and re- assessment proceedings were concluded after making addition u/s.68 of the Act at ₹83,56,232 and disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act at ₹1,36,378. Assessed income

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

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