CLARION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowed for Ahmadabad and Bangalore Units. He further submits that the AO omitted to state the entire reasons recorded for reopening and he mentioned only one paragraph of the reasons recorded. The CIT(A) without referring to the assessment records confirmed the reassessment made u/s. 147

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed the same u/s 37 of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,22,86,304/-. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee submitted that the reasons for reopening were communited to the assessee after 11 months of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act although the assessee

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings were also initiated and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act was completed on 10.03.2014 accepting the income assessed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 25.03.2013 without making any addition. The assessee went into first appeal against the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee preferred

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings were also initiated and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act was completed on 10.03.2014 accepting the income assessed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 25.03.2013 without making any addition. The assessee went into first appeal against the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee preferred

RAJDEEP BUILDCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings were also initiated and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act was completed on 10.03.2014 accepting the income assessed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 25.03.2013 without making any addition. The assessee went into first appeal against the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee preferred

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

147 of the Act had not made the addition of\nRs.7,62,67,463/- which was returned back to these shell companies. Since the\n8\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nassessee in his statement recorded /s 132(4) of the Act at the time of search u/s 132\nhad admitted to the fact that he had taken accommodation entries from

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

147 of the Act had not made the addition of\nRs.7,62,67,463/- which was returned back to these shell companies. Since the\n8\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nassessee in his statement recorded /s 132(4) of the Act at the time of search u/s 132\nhad admitted to the fact that he had taken accommodation entries from

DINDAYAL MAGASVARGIYA SAHAKARI SOOT GIRNI LTD,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SANGLI, CIRCLE SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.205/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dindayal Magasvargiya Vs. Acit, Circle Sangli, Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., Sangli. At Waghwadi, Post Kameri, Tal. Walwa, Sangli- 415403. Pan : Aaaad0254E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 For Ay 2014-15, Being The Year Beyond 4 Years & For Which Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Has Already Been Passed, Thereby

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for AY 2014-15 by recording the reason to believe which is based on audit objection. We submit that the reason based on such borrowed satisfaction cannot be the basis of reopening the concluded assessment. Therefore, entire proceedings are void ab initio. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds on the facts and in the circumstances

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

reassessment is invalid merely because no addition was made on the original reason is devoid of merit. Therefore, this ground of appeal may be rejected.” 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions relied on by both the sides. Through Ground No.1, assessee has raised legal issue challenging

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

reassessment is invalid merely because no addition was made on the original reason is devoid of merit. Therefore, this ground of appeal may be rejected.” 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions relied on by both the sides. Through Ground No.1, assessee has raised legal issue challenging

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

reassessment is invalid merely because no addition was made on the original reason is devoid of merit. Therefore, this ground of appeal may be rejected.” 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and carefully gone through the decisions relied on by both the sides. Through Ground No.1, assessee has raised legal issue challenging

DINDAYAL MAGASVARGIYA SAHAKARI SOOT GIRNI LTD ,WAGHWADI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SANGLI., NISHANT COLONY

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2325/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dindayal Magasvargiya Vs. Acit, Circle Sangli, Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., Sangli. At Waghwadi, Post Kameri, Tal. Walwa, Sangli- 415403. Pan : Aaaad0254E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri R. Y. Balawade Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 For Ay 2013-14, Being The Year Beyond 4 Years & For Which Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Has Already Been Passed, Thereby

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for AY 2013-14 by recording the reason to believe which is based on audit objection. We submit that the reason based on such borrowed satisfaction cannot be the basis of reopening the concluded assessment. Therefore, entire proceedings are void ab initio. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds on the facts and in the circumstances

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

disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 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

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

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

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

disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 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

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

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

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

disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 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

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

disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 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

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

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

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

disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 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

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

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

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

disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 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

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

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

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

disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 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