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

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

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

reassessment proceedings, finding that the AO had not applied his independent mind and that no fresh tangible material was available. The original assessment had already considered the transaction.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "10(38)", "143(3)", "153A", "148", "147", "151", "69C

SAURABH JAYANT BHAGAT,PANVEL RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO PANVEL

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2717 & 2718/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Saurabh Jayant Bhagat, The Income Tax Officer, A-806, Balaji Aangan, Nr. S T V Panvel. Depot, Panvel Raigad–410206. S. Maharashtra. Pan: Aklpb9996P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar & Shri Vinod Pawar – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Date 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) The Honorable Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Without Communicating The Reason For Reopening Of Assessment.

section 250 of the Act, date 31.05.2024 for the A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) The Honorable Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the reassessment proceedings without communicating the reason for reopening of assessment. ITA Nos.2717 & 2718/PUN/2024 [A] 2) The Honorable Commissioner of Income

SAURABH JAYANT BHAGA,RAIGAD PANVEL vs. ITO WARD-1, PANVEL

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2717 & 2718/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Saurabh Jayant Bhagat, The Income Tax Officer, A-806, Balaji Aangan, Nr. S T V Panvel. Depot, Panvel Raigad–410206. S. Maharashtra. Pan: Aklpb9996P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar & Shri Vinod Pawar – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Date 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) The Honorable Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Without Communicating The Reason For Reopening Of Assessment.

section 250 of the Act, date 31.05.2024 for the A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) The Honorable Commissioner of Income tax (A) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the reassessment proceedings without communicating the reason for reopening of assessment. ITA Nos.2717 & 2718/PUN/2024 [A] 2) The Honorable Commissioner of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

section\n115BBE. Based on the facts, circumstances and legal issues brought out in the\nforegoing paragraphs, I allow the claim that the income in question is a bonafide\nLTCG arising from the sale of M/s. PFL Infotech Ltd. shares, which is exempt from\nincome-tax u/s.10(38) of the Act. Therefore, Ground No. 5 and 6 succeed.\n\n10. Since

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

section\n115BBE. Based on the facts, circumstances and legal issues brought out in the\nforegoing paragraphs, I allow the claim that the income in question is a bonafide\nLTCG arising from the sale of M/s. PFL Infotech Ltd. shares, which is exempt from\nincome-tax u/s.10(38) of the Act. Therefore, Ground No. 5 and 6 succeed.\n\n10. Since

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

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

section 147 of the Act by recording the following reasons: CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 5. He, therefore, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.03.2020. The assessee in response to the same filed his return of income on 30.04.2020 declaring the income returned originally i.e. Rs.1,23,93,990/-. Subsequently notices

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

section 147 of the Act by recording the following reasons: CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 5. He, therefore, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.03.2020. The assessee in response to the same filed his return of income on 30.04.2020 declaring the income returned originally i.e. Rs.1,23,93,990/-. Subsequently notices

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

section 147 of the Act by recording the following reasons: CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 5. He, therefore, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.03.2020. The assessee in response to the same filed his return of income on 30.04.2020 declaring the income returned originally i.e. Rs.1,23,93,990/-. Subsequently notices

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant