M/S. LAXMISEN AGENCIES,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1846 & 1847/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Laxmisen Agencies, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Bf/01/C, 1697-A, Sakoli Kolhapur. Corner, Kedar Plaza, Kolhapur- 416001. Pan : Aabfl4690E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 13.07.2016 For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In The Above Captioned Two Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1846/Pun/2016 For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Are Stated Herein.

section 153 provide that the order of re-assessment shall be made within period of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice u/s 148 was served. In the present case, the notice u/s 148 was undisputedly served on or before 31.03.2013. Therefore, the reassessment order is required to be passed within a period

KALPANA VIJAY KADAM,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.841/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kalpana Vijay Kadam, V The Income Tax Officer, Fi 13, Janki Heights, S.No.250, S. Ward-2(2), Pune. Baner D P Road, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Axzpk4350P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P. Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Manish Mehta – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 06.02.2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Affording A Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant. The Order Was Solely Based On The Observations Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) In The

reassessment proceedings invalid. ii. The reopening was based on mere presumption and surmises, as it was initiated on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind by the AO. iii. The AO failed to appreciate the submissions made by the appellant and did not consider the true facts of the case 3. Without Prejudice to the above: i. The learned

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)

69C of the Act. The AO failed to ascertain whether the assessee had correctly disclosed all the particulars of his income for the year under consideration 04 In view of the above, it is found that the no verification on the aforesaid issue has been done in the assessment proceedings by the AO As per explanation (2) to section

MRS NEHA VITTHAL DIMBLE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment proceedings\nwhich constrained the Ld. AO to complete the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s.144B\nof the Act on 19.02.2024 at an assessed income of Rs.83,31,620/- by making\naddition of - (i) Rs.66,65,000/- in respect of cash deposits in bank treating the\nsame as unexplained money under section 69A; (ii) Rs.14,08,073/- in respect\nof purchase

JIVARAM MAGAJI CHAOUDHARY,PUNE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 7, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1392/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.4, Road No.5, Snehdeep Palace, Tingrenagar, Pune- 411032. Pan : Aalpc3973B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By Shri Uma Shankar Prasad : Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable

69C of the Act. 5. In view of the above, the assessee has wrongly claimed an additional benefit of deduction of Rs 68,32,775/- while calculating the capital gain arising as a result of the sale of the land. In view of the above discussions, this additional benefit claimed by the assessee is hereby disallowed and is added

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

69C of\nthe Act. Since the Assessing Officer failed to make addition of the same, the PCIT\nwas of the opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer has become\nerroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He, therefore, issued a show\ncause notice to the assessee to explain as to why the order passed by the Assessing

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

69C of\nthe Act. Since the Assessing Officer failed to make addition of the same, the PCIT\nwas of the opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer has become\nerroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He, therefore, issued a show\ncause notice to the assessee to explain as to why the order passed by the Assessing

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,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

69C provides that if any unrecorded expenditure is found and the assessee fails to explain the source of the said expenditure or explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory, then to the extent of the amount covered by such expenditure is treated as income. Ultimately what is taxed under Sec. 69 C of the Act is not the expenditure

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

69C provides that if any unrecorded expenditure is found and the assessee fails to explain the source of the said expenditure or explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory, then to the extent of the amount covered by such expenditure is treated as income. Ultimately what is taxed under Sec. 69 C of the Act is not the expenditure

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,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

69C provides that if any unrecorded expenditure is found and the assessee fails to explain the source of the said expenditure or explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory, then to the extent of the amount covered by such expenditure is treated as income. Ultimately what is taxed under Sec. 69 C of the Act is not the expenditure

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

69C provides that if any unrecorded expenditure is found and the assessee fails to explain the source of the said expenditure or explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory, then to the extent of the amount covered by such expenditure is treated as income. Ultimately what is taxed under Sec. 69 C of the Act is not the expenditure

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

69C provides that if any unrecorded expenditure is found and the assessee fails to explain the source of the said expenditure or explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory, then to the extent of the amount covered by such expenditure is treated as income. Ultimately what is taxed under Sec. 69 C of the Act is not the expenditure

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

69C provides that if any unrecorded expenditure is found and the assessee fails to explain the source of the said expenditure or explanation of the assessee is not satisfactory, then to the extent of the amount covered by such expenditure is treated as income. Ultimately what is taxed under Sec. 69 C of the Act is not the expenditure

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

sections": [ "132", "153A", "143(3)", "153B", "147", "148", "68", "10(38)", "69C", "151" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly

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

reassessment can be made\nunless the alleged escapement of\nincome is due to failure on the part\n(i) IPCA Laboratories\nLtd. v. DCIT - [(2001)\n251 ITR 416 (Bom)]\n(ii) Hindustan Lever\nLtd. v. CIT\n[(2004)\n268 ITR 339 (Bom)]\n(iii) Grindwell Norton\nLtd. v. CIT - [(2004)\n267 ITR 673 (Bom)]\n(iv)\nGerman\nRemedies

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

69C of the Act which demonstrates application of mind. 20. Regarding non-application of mind by the Addl. CIT while approving the draft assessment, the ld. CIT-DR submits that the assessment proceedings have undergone in multiple stages, involving the thorough discussions between the AO and the Addl. CIT till the completion of the order, is evident from para

ASHISH VILAS PUNDLIK,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5 (2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

section 151 of the ITA, 1961, is not discerning from: a) notice u/s 148 of the ITA, 1961; b) reasons record by the learned AO and c) assessment order and assessment records As such, appellant contends that, order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the ITA, 1961 is bad in law. 2. Appellant contends that the reassessment proceedings initiated

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

Section 69C of ITA, 1961 amounting to Rs.1,52,62,200 and Rs.9,15,732 respectively thereby confirming the assessed income to the tune of Rs.3,41,20,562/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,79,42,630/- 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment