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

69 as mandated by the amended provisions withdrawing its claim of deduction towards health and education cess for AY 2020-21. Therefore, in our view, there was no error on the part of the assessee in claiming education cess as an expense for the relevant AY under consideration. 6 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 Since the assessee claimed the deduction

PUSHPADEVI SHIVLAL RATHI ,JALNA vs. ITO WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1995/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18

reassessment notice which fell for completion from 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021, till 30.06.2021. 3. In the present case, the alleged escapement income even to the admission of the Ld. JAO is 11,61,395/- which below fifty lakh. Therefore, as per the amended section 149 of the Act, the notice u/s 148 in the present case could have been issued only

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

reassessment proceedings when admittedly conditions specified u/s 147 of the ITA, 1961 for valid initiation were not satisfied in as much as all the facts were truly and fully disclosed in the original assessment proceedings and order was passed after due verification. As such, the addition was only the result of a change in opinion and the action

KALPESH RATILAL GARDHARIA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD- 2(3), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

69, when the source and nature of cash deposit was explained that they belonged to Mr. Bipin Patel (client/principal) and assessee acted only as 'Agent'. 2 ITA 1850 of 2019 Kalpesh R. Gardharia A.Y. 2010-11 4. AO as well as CIT(A), has erred in not considering the claim of assessee that loss arising from Derivative Transactions being normal

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHRI SITARAM V. THAKUR,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1296/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 1(3), Kolhapur …. Vs. Kusum Sitaram Thakur L/H Of Late Shri Sitaram V. Thakur, A/P Nitawade, Tal: Bhudargad, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dist: Kolhapur Pan: Aawpm3998H आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1326/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2001-02 Kusum Sitaram Thakur L/H Of Late Shri Sitaram V. Thakur, A/P Nitawade, Tal: Bhudargad, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist: Kolhapur …. Pan: Aawpm3998H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1(3), Kolhapur

69 of the Act in their income tax assessments and not that of assessee. As far as the assessee was concerned, since loan account was in his name and there was no deposit either in the bank account or otherwise made by him to square up any account, the amount of ₹ 80,83,626/- was deleted from his hands. However

M/S. PRADNYA SUDHIR THAKUR,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1296/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 1(3), Kolhapur …. Vs. Kusum Sitaram Thakur L/H Of Late Shri Sitaram V. Thakur, A/P Nitawade, Tal: Bhudargad, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dist: Kolhapur Pan: Aawpm3998H आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1326/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2001-02 Kusum Sitaram Thakur L/H Of Late Shri Sitaram V. Thakur, A/P Nitawade, Tal: Bhudargad, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist: Kolhapur …. Pan: Aawpm3998H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1(3), Kolhapur

69 of the Act in their income tax assessments and not that of assessee. As far as the assessee was concerned, since loan account was in his name and there was no deposit either in the bank account or otherwise made by him to square up any account, the amount of ₹ 80,83,626/- was deleted from his hands. However

PRAKASH DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

reassessment is required to be made in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. Explanation - In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).] Thus, before 01-10-2014, the use of Sec 142A of the Act was limited to Sec 69

VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

reassessment is required to be made in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. Explanation - In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).] Thus, before 01-10-2014, the use of Sec 142A of the Act was limited to Sec 69

DASHRATH KONDIBA BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

reassessment is required to be made in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. Explanation - In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).] Thus, before 01-10-2014, the use of Sec 142A of the Act was limited to Sec 69

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE vs. VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

reassessment is required to be made in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. Explanation - In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).] Thus, before 01-10-2014, the use of Sec 142A of the Act was limited to Sec 69

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12, PUNE vs. VARUN JAIN, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamorecross Objection No.14/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2720/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Varun Jain, The Acit, P-024, Forest County, Kharadi, V Circle-12, Pune. Pune – 411014. S. Maharashtra. Pan:Aexpj0171J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2720/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Acit, Varun Jain, Circle-12, Pune. Vs. P-024, Forest County, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Maharashtra. Pan:Aexpj0171J Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Fenil Bhatt – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar - Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under C.O.No.14/Pun/2025 [A] & Ita No.2720/Pun/2024 [R]

reassessment order must be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify and add any further grounds of cross objections, if required.” 1.3 Both these appeals were heard together. C.O.No.14/PUN/2025 Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the Assessee submitted that Assessee has filed Return of Income for A.Y.2018-19 on 27.09.2018. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny

VISHNU SUBHASH AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2015-16

69 of Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the Ld. AO and further upheld by the Ld. First Appellate Authority is improper, unjustified and contrary to the provisions and scheme of the Act and facts prevailing in the case. The addition made be deleted. Just and proper relief be granted to the Appellant in this respect. 5. The Appellant prays

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. ATUL ASHOK PARAKH, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

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

section 69 of the Act. He therefore treated the amount of Rs.1,48,26,460/- as a unexplained money and added back the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act. 6. A show cause notice dated 23.03.2022 with a copy of draft assessment order was sent to the assessee requiring him to furnish reply

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

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

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

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

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

UDAY UTTAMRAO NEVASE,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER / ASSESSMENT UNIT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2606/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Uday Uttamrao Nevase, V The Assessing Officer / Saugandh Niwas, Hind Colony S Assessment Unit, Pune. Lane No.1 A, Bhekrai Nagar, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Pan: Akqpn1150Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Rohan Gupta Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 04.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 270A, Dated 17.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Ground 1 Section 270Aa Immunity Cit A Erred In Law By Confirming The Penalty Of Rs 629382 Under Section 270A Without Considering And

69 years and his mother aged 64 years at the relevant time. A screenshot evidencing the selection of the revised return filing option by the assessee is enclosed as Exhibit A 6. Thereafter, in compliance with subsequent notices u/s 143(3), the Assessee voluntarily paid the tax differential of 23,71,620 without dispute. The same was paid within stipulated