HOTEL SAI SIDDHI PVT. LTD.,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Hotel Sai Siddhi Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-1, Nashik 3/4, Poush Sector, Lekha Nagar, Vs. Mumbai Agra Road, Nashik – 422009 Pan: Aabch4310G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-01-2026 O R D E R

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can‟t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

BHANUDAS DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

revised declaration dated 03-04-2009 included income from sale of Bhosale plot Rs.36.53 lakhs and Rishikesh plots Rs.13 lakhs. There was no corroborative evidence to show that the amounts family at any point of time. The presumption u/s. 132(4A) is rebutted by denial of City Corporation in their assessment proceedings. The ld. Counsel furnished copy

VITTHAL DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

revised declaration dated 03-04-2009 included income from sale of Bhosale plot Rs.36.53 lakhs and Rishikesh plots Rs.13 lakhs. There was no corroborative evidence to show that the amounts family at any point of time. The presumption u/s. 132(4A) is rebutted by denial of City Corporation in their assessment proceedings. The ld. Counsel furnished copy

SOPAN DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

revised declaration dated 03-04-2009 included income from sale of Bhosale plot Rs.36.53 lakhs and Rishikesh plots Rs.13 lakhs. There was no corroborative evidence to show that the amounts family at any point of time. The presumption u/s. 132(4A) is rebutted by denial of City Corporation in their assessment proceedings. The ld. Counsel furnished copy

SANDIP BHANUDAS TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

revised declaration dated 03-04-2009 included income from sale of Bhosale plot Rs.36.53 lakhs and Rishikesh plots Rs.13 lakhs. There was no corroborative evidence to show that the amounts family at any point of time. The presumption u/s. 132(4A) is rebutted by denial of City Corporation in their assessment proceedings. The ld. Counsel furnished copy

VITTHAL DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

revised declaration dated 03-04-2009 included income from sale of Bhosale plot Rs.36.53 lakhs and Rishikesh plots Rs.13 lakhs. There was no corroborative evidence to show that the amounts family at any point of time. The presumption u/s. 132(4A) is rebutted by denial of City Corporation in their assessment proceedings. The ld. Counsel furnished copy

BHANUDAS DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

revised declaration dated 03-04-2009 included income from sale of Bhosale plot Rs.36.53 lakhs and Rishikesh plots Rs.13 lakhs. There was no corroborative evidence to show that the amounts family at any point of time. The presumption u/s. 132(4A) is rebutted by denial of City Corporation in their assessment proceedings. The ld. Counsel furnished copy

DNYANESHWAR DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

revised declaration dated 03-04-2009 included income from sale of Bhosale plot Rs.36.53 lakhs and Rishikesh plots Rs.13 lakhs. There was no corroborative evidence to show that the amounts family at any point of time. The presumption u/s. 132(4A) is rebutted by denial of City Corporation in their assessment proceedings. The ld. Counsel furnished copy

RAMDAS BHANUDASTUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

revised declaration dated 03-04-2009 included income from sale of Bhosale plot Rs.36.53 lakhs and Rishikesh plots Rs.13 lakhs. There was no corroborative evidence to show that the amounts family at any point of time. The presumption u/s. 132(4A) is rebutted by denial of City Corporation in their assessment proceedings. The ld. Counsel furnished copy

BADRINATH DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

revised declaration dated 03-04-2009 included income from sale of Bhosale plot Rs.36.53 lakhs and Rishikesh plots Rs.13 lakhs. There was no corroborative evidence to show that the amounts family at any point of time. The presumption u/s. 132(4A) is rebutted by denial of City Corporation in their assessment proceedings. The ld. Counsel furnished copy

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

263 of the Act become nullity. 22. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find an identical issue had come up before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sejal Jewellery & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). In that case a search action was carried

PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

reassessment proceedings through qualified representative wherein written submissions were furnished by the 9 assessee and after considering the contentions of the assessee, the orders were passed by-parte wherein the assessment was completed on a total income of Rs.46,96,100/- as against the original assessed income u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act at Rs.14

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

revision powers of the CIT under Section 263 of\nthe (IT) Act. Accordingly, after considering the totality of facts & circumstances of\nthe case and for the detailed reasons discussed herein above, I hold that the\nassessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dtd. 28/12/2018 for AY 2011-12, passed by\nthe Assessing Officer as erroneous & prejudicial

MAHATMA PHULE GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. PCIT-1, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

revised. The contents of the notice issued u/s 263 of the Act read as under: 3 4. However, despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. PCIT the assessee did not respond for which the Ld. PCIT decided the issue on the basis of material available on record. He noticed that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.61

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

revision powers of the CIT under Section 263 of the (IT) Act. Accordingly, after considering the totality of facts & circumstances of the case and for the detailed reasons discussed herein above, I hold that the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dtd. 28/12/2018 for AY 2011-12, passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous & prejudicial

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

Revision by CIT was therefore sustainable." 4.1 Similarly Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata upheld the action u/s 263 of the Act in the case of CIT Vs. Maithan International (56 taxmann.com 283) holding that Assessing Officer could not accept genuineness of loan taken by the assessee from various creditors merely on the basis of their bank statements

SHRI UPASANI KANYAKUMARI SANSTHAN,RAHATA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

revision granted by section 263 to the learned Commissioner have four compartments. In the first place, the learned Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act. For calling of the record and examination, the learned Commissioner was not required to show any reason. It is a part of his administrative control to call

NALCO COMPANY ,USA,,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT/TP),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 736/Pun/2019 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

NALCO COMPANY,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT. TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 736/Pun/2019 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal