ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

69 Тахтап 627 (SC) 18 February, 2025\nWP3057_2019.DOC jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue the impugned\nnotice would be required to be considered on the basis of the departmental record\nand on such basis, the relevant provisions of law which would govern the facts\nand circumstances of the case in the hands of the Assessing Officer. In the present

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

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

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

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be\npassed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-\nBA.\"\n11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of\nlaw that the approval under Section 153D

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

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be\npassed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-\nBA.\"\n11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of\nlaw that the approval under Section 153D

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 order, as the case may be, is required to be\npassed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-\nBA.\"\n11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of\nlaw 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

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be\npassed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-\nBA.\"\n11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of\nlaw that the approval under Section 153D

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 order, as the case may be, is required to be\npassed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of Section 144-\nBA.\"\n\n11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision evinces an uncontrived position of\nlaw that the approval under Section 153D

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

69\n(Calcutta Trib.)]\n13. Himalaya Distributors v. ITO - [2009] 125 TTJ 705 (Pune)]\n25. Some legal propositions have also been summarised in the\npaper book running into 29 pages referring evidenctiary value of\na statement retraction, presumption u/s.132(4A)/292C, legal\npropositions regarding deeming provisions of section 68 to 69C\nto be strictly construed, onus/burden for the undisclosed\nincome