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

assessment and initiated the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 by issue of notice dated 31.03.2017 u/s 148 of the Act based on the information received by him from the search action u/s 132 of the Act carried out on Mr. Anand Sharma and group wherein he had admitted that various concerns operated by him were indulged in providing bogus accommodation entries

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

assessment u/s 147 is not appropriate by law and should have been as provided by u/s 153C, did not adjudicate the grounds no. 1 & 2 challenging the reopening u/s 147. The respondent prays that in a case, where the findings of the Hon. CIT(A) vis-a-vis the applicability of section 153C to the present proceedings is not upheld

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer in the\norder passed u/s 143(3) / 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

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

147 relates to such other new or tangible material as may have come to the knowledge of the assessing officer pursuant to the original proceedings for assessment. The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (320 ITR 561) states thus in the context of the „belief‟ that should form the basis for a re-assessment; „We must also keep

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

147 relates to such other new or tangible material as may have come to the knowledge of the assessing officer pursuant to the original proceedings for assessment. The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (320 ITR 561) states thus in the context of the „belief‟ that should form the basis for a re-assessment; „We must also keep

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. SECO TOOLS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objections of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

147 relates to such other new or tangible material as may have come to the knowledge of the assessing officer pursuant to the original proceedings for assessment. The Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India (320 ITR 561) states thus in the context of the „belief‟ that should form the basis for a re-assessment; „We must also keep

SHRI SHANTINATH BHAGWAN JAIN SHWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK SANGH,PUNE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 ITA No.203/PUN/2021, A.Y. 2010-11 2. It emerges at the outset that the CIT(E)’s impugned order exercising section 263 revision jurisdiction terms the corresponding assessment /reassessment herein dated 29-09-2017 as an erroneous one causing prejudice

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

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3) / 147 of the Act had not made the addition of Rs.7,62,67,463/- which was returned back to these shell companies. Since the 8 ITA No.1178/PUN/2023 ITA No.2017/PUN/2024 assessee in his statement recorded /s 132(4) of the Act at the time

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

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

reopening of the assessment were not provided to the assessee. He has also given a finding that the Assessing Officer has not provided the reasons so recorded u/s 147 of the Act inspite of the fact that it had requested the Assessing Officer vide letters dated 07.04.2014 and 22.08.2014. 12. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that relevant facts in assessee’s former twin appeals hardly require us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as its first and foremost substantive grievance challenging correctness

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that relevant facts in assessee’s former twin appeals hardly require us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as its first and foremost substantive grievance challenging correctness

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that relevant facts in assessee’s former twin appeals hardly require us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as its first and foremost substantive grievance challenging correctness

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

147 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the information received in the context of the facts on record The impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

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

147 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the information received in the context of the facts on record The impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

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

147 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the information received in the context of the facts on record The impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

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

147 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the information received in the context of the facts on record The impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

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

147 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the information received in the context of the facts on record The impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

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

147 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the information received in the context of the facts on record The impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

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

147 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the information received in the context of the facts on record The impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment