TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

70,490/-in hands of appellant. 7.9 Further exclusion provided under section 270A(6)(a) is not applicable in view of 270A(8) as far as cases of misreporting of income like present case is concerned. Section 270A (8) reads as "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or sub-section (7), where under reported income is in consequence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

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

70]. In paras 48 to 72, Hon'ble Supreme Court has\ndiscussed this issue and has held that the notice under the new provision of section\n148 have to be seen considering the proviso to section 149. He accordingly\nsubmitted that the notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law since no notice u/s 148 could\nhave been issued under

VINODKUMAR DHANULALJI SAWJI,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1 , JALNA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

reassessment\nproceedings under section 147/148 bad in law liable to be set\naside.\n5. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one\nanother.\n6. The appellant craves leave to furnish Additional Evidence\nwhich may be relevant to the above Grounds of Appeal in\ncourse of the appeal proceedings.\"\nThe assessee also raised additional ground which reads\nas under

VINODKUMAR DHANULALJI SAWJI ,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 bad in law liable to be set aside 5. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 6. The appellant craves leave to furnish Additional Evidence which may be relevant to the above Grounds of Appeal in course of the appeal proceedings.” 4. The assessee also raised additional ground which reads

SATYAPREM RAJABHAU DHOLE,BEED vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 151A of the Act. 2.2 It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in the present case is bad in law and therefore deserves to be quashed. 3. LEAVE The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete

GULAMAHEMAD HAMIDULLA KHAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE

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

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

section 147 as inserted by finance act 2021, on the basis of information gathered during the search conducted on M/s Renukamata Multistate Urban Co-operative Credit Society, therefore the action is illegal as the proceedings ought to have been initiated u/s 153C, therefore consequential order passed is bad in law and deserves to be struck down. 4. On the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. MARSH FINCOM PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1342/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Aurangabad. Vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Gold Crest, Ns Road No.10, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan : Aabck0760B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Quashing Proceedings U/S. 153A In Respect Of Assessee Where The Assessee’S Case Was Covered Under Section 132 Of The Act Dated 20.08.2014. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Made

section 132A and during the search any incriminating material is found, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO would have the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material collected during the search and other material which would include income declared in the returns, if any, furnished by the assessee as well

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. SANDEEP BIPINCHANDRA JHAVERI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

70,00,000/- was paid to investors during buyback of shares of Jhaveri Flexo India Ltd. During the course of search action statement of Abhishek Jhaveri was also recorded under oath, wherein he admitted that the shares were purchased back from the investors & cash of Rs. 4.70 crore was paid to them, 50% by RSJ group & remaining

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings. Therefore, notice\nissued u/s 148 and the consequential assessment order passed is illegal and\ndeserves to be quashed.\n2. THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS\nOF SECTION 151A\n2.1 The Ld. JAO has erred in assuming the jurisdiction to issue the notice u/s\n148 which is in non-compliance to the provisions

GULAMAHEMAD HAMIDULLA KHAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

70 (SC)[2024], therefore consequential order needs to be quashed 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating reassessment proceedings under section

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

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

PARVATI STEEL RE ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) and thereafter issued notice u/s 148 2 on 31.03.2021. The notice was duly served upon the registered e-mail of the assessee. However, no return of income in response to the said notice was filed. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notices

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

70 (SC), copy of which is placed at pages 1 to 42 of the paper book. He submitted that in the instant case notice u/s 148 of the Act is dated 08.04.2021. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra), he submitted that as per the said decision

PRITESH RATANSHI VED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), JALGAON

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

70 (SC). Accordingly, Ld. AR submitted before the bench that the issue involved in the 5 instant case is squarely covered in his favour and therefore Ld. AR requested before the bench to allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, SATARA, INCOME TAX OFFICE SATARA vs. NANDKUMAR DATTATRAY KHOT, DAHIWADI MAN

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.1562/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, V Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Ward-3, Satara S Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan: Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, V The Income Tax Officer, Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, S Ward-3, Satara. Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan:Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Ar Shri Vidya Ratna Kishor – (Dr)(Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of

section 144B of the Income Tax Act Against the order u/s 147 rws 1448, dated 22/05/2023, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) The assessee took around 12 grounds before CIT(A) as mentioned in the page 3 of the Ld CIT(A)'s order. The assessee also took additional ground based on the decision of Telangana