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

reassess the income of other person in accordance with provisions of section 153A of the Act. Section thus, very clearly lays down the procedure to be followed when during the course of search on a person any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing, or any books of account or documents or any information contained therein pertains

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

reassess the income of other person in accordance with provisions of section 153A of the Act. Section thus, very clearly lays down the procedure to be followed when during the course of search on a person any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing, or any books of account or documents or any information contained therein pertains

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

reassess the income of other person in accordance with provisions of section 153A of the Act. Section thus, very clearly lays down the procedure to be followed when during the course of search on a person any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing, or any books of account or documents or any information contained therein pertains

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

reassess the income of other person in accordance with provisions of section 153A of the Act. Section thus, very clearly lays down the procedure to be followed when during the course of search on a person any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing, or any books of account or documents or any information contained therein pertains

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

6. The Ld. AR filed detailed submissions before us in support of the grounds raised by the assessee inter alia contending as under : “(a) The Observation and findings of the Assessing Officer 7. The facts of the case have been stated in detail above which may kindly be considered. The Id. Assessing Officer during the penalty proceedings found that

ANANT MATE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1674 To 1678/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2008-09 & 2010-11

reassessment proceeding u/s 153A. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in considering the original return filed before search for levy of penalty abated or non-est. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in holding that inadvertent mistakes can only

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

c) Clause 12(d) 1 Sandvik Asia Limited Receipt for IT 8,072,286 8,072,286 Refer Note 6 Mumbai – Pune support to Appendix D Road, Dapodi, services Pune - 411012 10. The Notes to this effect was also given in Form No.3CEB. The original assessment in the case was completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

c) Clause 12(d) 1 Sandvik Asia Limited Receipt for IT 8,072,286 8,072,286 Refer Note 6 Mumbai – Pune support to Appendix D Road, Dapodi, services Pune - 411012 10. The Notes to this effect was also given in Form No.3CEB. The original assessment in the case was completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. SECO TOOLS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objections of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

c) Clause 12(b) 12(d) 1 Sandvik Asia Receipt for 8,072,286 8,072,28 Refer Note Limited IT support 6 6 to Mumbai – Pune services Appendix D Road, Dapodi, Pune - 411012 10. The Notes to this effect was also given in Form No.3CEB. The original assessment in the case was completed by issue of intimation under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

6. Mr. Nilesh Bharani vs DCIT CC 4(1) Mumbai (2023) Taxcorp (AT) 103442 (ITAT-Mumbai) 14. He submitted that it is the settled proposition of law that section 153C of the Act is a complete code for cases of ‘other persons’ where seized material belongs 13 CO No.43/PUN/2025 to them and therefore, resort to section 147 in such cases

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

reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub- section (4) has been made accepting the application." 20. Sub-section (18) of Section 155 of the Income Tax Act is inserted vide Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2022. The above referred provisions provide that deduction of any surcharge, cess, which

TUSHAR R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes on the same. In view thereof, sum of ₹ 3,40,000/- was added

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes on the same. In view thereof, sum of ₹ 3,40,000/- was added

SMT. VAISHALI TUSHAR JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes on the same. In view thereof, sum of ₹ 3,40,000/- was added

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes on the same. In view thereof, sum of ₹ 3,40,000/- was added

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes on the same. In view thereof, sum of ₹ 3,40,000/- was added

TUSHAR R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes on the same. In view thereof, sum of ₹ 3,40,000/- was added

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

6 lakhs each. The Assessing Officer noted that sum of ₹ 1.38 crores was paid in cash out of unaccounted income premium. Regarding the source of ₹ 1.38 crores, Smt. Shakuntala Jagtap stated that the same was out of her undisclosed income and she admitted to pay the taxes on the same. In view thereof, sum of ₹ 3,40,000/- was added