RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

set- off of any other LOSS was also introduced from AY 2017-18 only. As such, for all years till AY 2016-17, the 'reasons' formed for the belief of 'escapement of income' were specious and leading to a NULLITY. Appellant relies on CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 dated 19/6/2019 clarifying the scheme of Section 115BBE in this regard (copy enclosed

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

set- off of any other LOSS was also introduced from AY 2017-18 only. As such, for all years till AY 2016-17, the 'reasons' formed for the belief of 'escapement of income' were specious and leading to a NULLITY. Appellant relies on CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 dated 19/6/2019 clarifying the scheme of Section 115BBE in this regard (copy enclosed

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

set-\noff of any other LOSS was also introduced from AY 2017-18 only. As\nsuch, for all years till AY 2016-17, the 'reasons' formed for the belief\nof 'escapement of income' were specious and leading to a NULLITY.\nAppellant relies on CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 dated_19/6/2019\nclarifying the scheme of Section 115BBE in this regard (coру\nenclosed

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

set-\noff of any other LOSS was also introduced from AY 2017-18 only. As\nsuch, for all years till AY 2016-17, the 'reasons' formed for the belief\nof 'escapement of income' were specious and leading to a NULLITY.\nAppellant relies on CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 dated_19/6/2019\nclarifying the scheme of Section 115BBE in this regard (coру\nenclosed

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

set-\noft of any other LOSS was also introduced from AY 2017-18 only. As\nsuch, for all years till AY 2016-17, the 'reasons' formed for the belief\nof 'escapement of income' were specious and leading to a NULLITY.\nAppellant relies on CBDT Circular No. 11/2019 dated_19/6/2019\nclarifying the scheme of Section 115BBE in this regard (coру\nenclosed

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

set out in Section 270AA(4) of the Act.‖ 27. In the present case, neither in the assessment order dated 22.09.2022 nor in the subsequent show-cause notices, the Assessing Officer has specified that the case of the petitionercompany is covered under which part of sub-section (9) of Section 270A of the Act. Even in the impugned order dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under- reported income as if it were the total income; (c) in any other case determined in accordance with the formula- (X-Y) where, 15 ITA.Nos.1939 & 1940/PUN./2024 X = the amount of tax calculated on the under- reported income as increased by the total income determined under clause

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

loss, the amount of tax calculated on the under- reported income as if it were the total income; (c) in any other case determined in accordance with the formula- (X-Y) where, 15 ITA.Nos.1939 & 1940/PUN./2024 X = the amount of tax calculated on the under- reported income as increased by the total income determined under clause

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

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

set off of profit on trading in derivatives against brought forward losses. 3. That the order dated 15.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in passing

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

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

set off of profit on trading in derivatives against brought forward losses. 3. That the order dated 15.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in passing

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

loss into income. (3)The amount of under-reported income shall be, - (i) in a case where income has been assessed for the first time,- (a) if return has been furnished, the difference between the amount of income assessed and the amount of income determined under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 143; (b) in a case where

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

set apart sine die an amount of Rs. 88128963/-being 15% of the gross receipts as declared in the Income & expenditure account of Rs. 587526422/- but such accumulation was taken only to the extent of Rs. 63465913/-, considering the facts of the case of the assessee, there cannot be said any under reporting and / or misreporting of facts which

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

VLIFE SCIENCES TECHNOLOGIES P LTD (SINCE MERGED WITH NOVALEAD PHARMA P LTD ),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09 Vlife Sciences Technologies Pvt. The Deputy Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income (Since Merged With Novalead Tax, Circle-(1), Pune. Pharma P. Ltd.,) 3Rd Floor, Anahat, Plot No.5, Ram Indu Park, Baner Road, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aabcv 5959 N Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B.D.Bhide – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2023 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 (Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 23.12.2021 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, Dated 28.02.2014 For A.Y.2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By An Order Passed By The Id. Cit(A) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfaq Hereinafter Referred For Short As ‘Id. Cit(A), U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 23Rd December, Vlife Sciences Technologies Pvt. Ltd., [A]

reassessment records in-spite of repeated requests filed by the appellant which are acknowledged by the lower assessing authorities including the jurisdictional Pr. CIT. vi. Said order was passed by ignoring CBDT’s instruction/ LETTER F.NO.DGIT (VIG.)/HQ/SI/APPEALS/2017-18/9959 because of which, there was inordinate delay while passing an order U/Sec.250 beyond 15 days from the date of last hearing

SHAKIL SHAKUR BIJAPURE,SATARA vs. DCIT CIRCLE , SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

loss. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice.” 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the major amount of additions made by Assessing Officer (AO) includes

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

set-off of brought forward losses on amalgamating company on amalgamation with assessee was not in order, reopening of assessment on second thought on same audit objection was not permissible while exercising powers under section 147 read with section 148. 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. ICICI Securities Primary

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." 6. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to s. 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to the Direct Tax Laws

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. (3) …… (4) …... (5) …… 12 (6) ….. (7) …. (8) …. (9) The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall be the following, namely:— (a) misrepresentation or suppression of facts; (b) failure to record investments in the books of account; (c) claim of expenditure

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM..OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. 5.1. Referring to the above clauses, he submitted that assessee does not fall under any of the above clauses. He submitted that once it is to be held that there is no under- reporting of income, the question of mis-reporting of income does not arise