SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

reassessment is unsustainable and becomes void. 5.9 The appellant has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Narendrakumar Mansukhbhai Patel v. ITO (Guj.) 92 taxmann.com 259 [2018]. In this case, the case was reopened on the basis of the following reasons:- "All information has been received from the ACIT, Central Circle

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KIRTI SOLVEX LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

90 has further directed that minimum four weeks time should be granted to the assessee after service of order deciding objections before the Assessing Officer proceeds with the assessment. 7. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in a recent decision rendered in the case of KSS Petron Private Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in Income Tax Appeal

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE vs. ZEAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

90,63,723/- imposed by the Ld.AO u/s 270A of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee furnished its written submissions which are recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 6.4 of his appellate order. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, deleted the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO observing that for levy

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

90,35,236/- was assessed to tax. The assessee claimed the entire business income as exempt u/s. 10(29) of the Act. 2.1 Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 31-01-2005, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed partial relief to the assessee by allowing benefit of unabsorbed

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

90,35,236/- was assessed to tax. The assessee claimed the entire business income as exempt u/s. 10(29) of the Act. 2.1 Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 31-01-2005, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed partial relief to the assessee by allowing benefit of unabsorbed

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

90,35,236/- was assessed to tax. The assessee claimed the entire business income as exempt u/s. 10(29) of the Act. 2.1 Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 31-01-2005, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed partial relief to the assessee by allowing benefit of unabsorbed

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

90,35,236/- was assessed to tax. The assessee claimed the entire business income as exempt u/s. 10(29) of the Act. 2.1 Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 31-01-2005, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed partial relief to the assessee by allowing benefit of unabsorbed

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

KUMAR GAURAV SHARMA ,CURRENTLY EMPLOYED IN USA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER , PUNE

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

90 of the Income Tax Act provides for Double Taxation\nRelief on the basis of Agreement with foreign countries or specified territories. A\nmandatory condition for availing Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) is the filing of a Form\n67 before the due date of filing of Return of Income under section 139(1)\nof the Act. As stated above, the Appellant

MRINALINI JAYANT PURANIK,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20 Mrinalini Jayant Puranik Ito, Ward 2(2), Pune Flat 14, Khagol Coop Society, Vs. S.No.38/1, Panchavati, Pashan, Pune – 411008 Pan: Almpp5163E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

90% of tax has already been deducted from the income so declared by the assessee. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has filed Form No.68 on 29.02.2024. We find the provisions of section 270AA of the Act read as under: 9 “Immunity from imposition of penalty, etc. 270AA. (1) An assessee may make an application

SHARAD BHASKARRAO GAIKWAD,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.918/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sharad Bhaskarrao The Income Tax Officer, Gaikwad, V Nashik. T No.1, Vanai Apartment, S Gangapur Road, Behind Kulswamini Apartment, Nashik – 422005. Pan: Adspg2339R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Assessee By Revenue By Shri Sourabho Nayak – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 02.05.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.02.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A]

90,780/- Rs.8,26,919/- Chapter VI Deduction Rs.3,10,000/- Rs.1,56,277/- Claimed 2.3 Thus, during the assessment proceedings, AO noted that in the revised return of income, assessee had claimed less deduction u/s.Chapter VIA as compared to his earlier Return 3 Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A] of Income. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A

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

90,000/-, 80E for Rs.4,00,000/-, 80EEA for Rs. 1,50,000/-, 80EEB for Rs.1,50,000/- and 80GGC for Rs.1,00,000/- were disallowed. Further, since as per rent agreement, the assessee paid rent Rs. 30,000/- per month, exemption in respect of HRA received was allowed for Rs.1,28,777/- only and Rs.86,593/- was added

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

The appeal stands dismissed

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under section 132A of the Act, was executed.” 37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s 127 is assigned in favour

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)

90 of the paper book). These pleadings of the Assessee have been mentioned in the order u/s.263 of the Act, but Pr.CIT has not rebutted the contentions of the Assessee. We have already reproduced the relevant paragraphs of the order u/s.263 of the Act, and it can be observed from these paragraphs that nowhere Pr.CIT has mentioned the date

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

The appeal stands dismissed

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

reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation to search under section 132 of the Act or requisition under section 132A of the Act, was executed.” 37. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that typically, the jurisdiction u/s 127 is assigned in favour

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]” 5.5 If the provisions of law contained under section 14A and diction of section 14A is perused

LALCHAND MEHRUMAL JAGWANI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7 (3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryनिर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Lalchand Mehrumal Jagwani Vs. Ito, Ward 7(3), B-37, Marigold Premises, Behind Pune Gold Adlab Big Cinema, Wadgaonsheri, Pune – 411014 Pan : Adspj8025F Appellant Respondent

90,000 under the head House Property only and claimed deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- under Ch.VIA of the I.T. Act, 1961. In the return furnished by him for A.Y. 2009-10, he has declared total income of Rs.11,57,130/-. In the return, he has shown the income of Rs.1,21,600 under the head House Property and Rs.11

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case