M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

67,47,068/- and Rs.1,10,00,000/-, assessment year wise, respectively, had escaped assessment. He thereafter went on to frame the impugned re-assessments dated 30.12.2017, in both cases, inter alia, disallowing/adding interest amount of Rs.68.50 lakhs with brokerage/commission of Rs.3,42,500/- each therein which stand upheld in the CIT(A)’s very much elaborate discussions in issue

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

67,123/-, on account of unsecured loans and the interest thereon. 5.5. However, the appellant has strongly argued that the reasons recorded were wrong and the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of wrong reasons. The appellant stated that reassessment proceedings were initiated after recording reasons that "bogus companies run by Mr. Anand Sharma and group had provided bogus

MOTIWALA AUTO PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD1(1), AURANABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

67,694/- (iv) interest on\ndebentures of Rs.13,630/-, (iv) professional/technical fee of Rs.3,52,696/; (v)\ninterest from Hyundai Motor India of Rs.82,500/-, (vi) sale/purchase of Motor\nVehicle of Rs.6,95,134/-, (vii) turnover from business of Rs.1,29,49,068/- and\n(viii) cash deposits of Rs.1,08,09,180/-, aggregating to Rs.3,06,55,158/.\nTherefore

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 order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144- BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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 order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144- BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144- BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

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 order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144- BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

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 order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144- BA." 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of law that the approval under Section 153D

SHAMKANT KESHAV KOTKAR (PROP. NANDAN BUILDERS),PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

67,319/-. 03. On perusal of the assessment records and information available with this office, it is seen the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate construction and development. Further, it is observed that the assessee had taken loan in cash through Shri Sachin Nahar of Rs.1,00,00,000/- against which he had paid interest of Rs.12

KHAN AFZALHUSAIN MOHD.SAIE,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2710/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mr. Khan Afzalhusain Mohd. Saie, Prop. Afkaar Steel; Plot No. 67, Satpur, Ambad Link Road, Nashik – 422010 अऩीऱाथी/Appellant …. Pan: Ajepk1750A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Nashik …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent

67, Satpur, Ambad Link Road, Nashik – 422010 अऩीऱाथी/Appellant …. PAN: AJEPK1750A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Nashik …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Hitendra Ninave सुनवाई की तारीख / घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 18.12.2018 Date of Hearing : 11.12.2018 आदेश / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA

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

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

section 132 of the act in\nthe case of assessee, the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the\nAct. In the statement recorded under oath the assessee admitted to the fact that he\nhad taken accommodation entries from Kolkata based companies by providing\nunaccounted cash to them through the mediators by Hawala Channels. In the\nstatement

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

section 132 of the act in\nthe case of assessee, the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the\nAct. In the statement recorded under oath the assessee admitted to the fact that he\nhad taken accommodation entries from Kolkata based companies by providing\nunaccounted cash to them through the mediators by Hawala Channels. In the\nstatement

INDAPUR TALUKA PRATHAMIK SHIKANCHI SAHKARI PATASANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1010/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Indapur Taluka Prathamik V The Income Tax Officer, Shikanchi Sahkari S Ward-14(5), Pune. Patasanstha Maryadit, At Post Indiapur, Near Kadam Hospital, Tal Indapur, Dist-Pune. Maharashtra – 413106. Pan: Aaaai1014K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 09/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 12.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer Have Erred In In Rejecting Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(A)(I) For A Sum Of Rs.41,05,813 For Part Of The Profit Of Appellant Society Without Appreciating The Fact That Earning Of Interest Is An Integral Part Of Society’S Business & Appellant Prays For Allowing Such Deduction.

67,460 by claiming deduction under section 80Pfora sum of Rs.1,43,15,867 The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason large deduction under u/ c VIA and Learned AO passed order under section 143(3) dt. 27.11.2019 by accepting he returned income, subsequently Hon'ble Pr. CIT has treated this order as erroneous and prejudicial

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]” 5.5 If the provisions of law contained under section 14A and diction of section 14A is perused

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. B. No Approval u/s 151 is obtained on the reasons recorded. C. The Approval alongwith proposal clearly shows that it was only proposal and there is no finding about the reason to believe. D. The appellant has discharged the burden u/s 68 by furnishing the supporting documents. E. There is no material to show