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

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

SHRI 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 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

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

263 of the Act, the assessee was obliged to declare the additional income in the Revised return of income filed on 30/09/2011, much before the issuing of the statutory notice by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s.148 of the P Act on 25/07/2012. Therefore, when the assessee had declared the due income for the year under consideration in the Revised return

USHA K JOLLY CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION), , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.174/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Usha K. Jolly Charitable Vs. Cit (Exemption), Pune. Trust, 23, Jolly Villa, Bund Garden Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaatu1384R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [‘The Cit (Exemption)’] Dated 30.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit (Exemptions) Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking The Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961, Since Issues

147 accepting the returned income. 4. Subsequently, the ld. CIT (Exemption), on perusal of the assessment records, found three violations i.e. : (i) The appellant trust had received corpus fund of Rs.20,04,45,600/- during the year under consideration which was claimed to be exempt from tax without verifying whether the donor had donated the amount towards corpus fund

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

revised computation, therefore, he disallowed the additional claim of Rs.892 crores made by the assessee during the year on account of accrued interest on loan taken from Mumbai Port Trust / Kandla Port Trust which were not paid in earlier years and not debited in the Profit & Loss Account. He further disallowed the interest of Rs.157.34 crores actually paid

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

revised computation, therefore, he disallowed the additional claim of Rs.892 crores made by the assessee during the year on account of accrued interest on loan taken from Mumbai Port Trust / Kandla Port Trust which were not paid in earlier years and not debited in the Profit & Loss Account. He further disallowed the interest of Rs.157.34 crores actually paid

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

revised computation, therefore, he disallowed the additional claim of Rs.892 crores made by the assessee during the year on account of accrued interest on loan taken from Mumbai Port Trust / Kandla Port Trust which were not paid in earlier years and not debited in the Profit & Loss Account. He further disallowed the interest of Rs.157.34 crores actually paid

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

revised computation, therefore, he disallowed the additional claim of Rs.892 crores made by the assessee during the year on account of accrued interest on loan taken from Mumbai Port Trust / Kandla Port Trust which were not paid in earlier years and not debited in the Profit & Loss Account. He further disallowed the interest of Rs.157.34 crores actually paid

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

revised computation, therefore, he disallowed the additional claim of Rs.892 crores made by the assessee during the year on account of accrued interest on loan taken from Mumbai Port Trust / Kandla Port Trust which were not paid in earlier years and not debited in the Profit & Loss Account. He further disallowed the interest of Rs.157.34 crores actually paid

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

revised computation, therefore, he disallowed the additional claim of Rs.892 crores made by the assessee during the year on account of accrued interest on loan taken from Mumbai Port Trust / Kandla Port Trust which were not paid in earlier years and not debited in the Profit & Loss Account. He further disallowed the interest of Rs.157.34 crores actually paid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

147 of the Act on\nthe ground that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act\nwhich tantamount to concealment of income and which came to light as a result of\ninformation gathered from DSIR. We find the Assessing Officer, rejecting the\nvarious explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

147 of the Act on\nthe ground that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act\nwhich tantamount to concealment of income and which came to light as a result of\ninformation gathered from DSIR. We find the Assessing Officer, rejecting the\nvarious explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

147 of the Act on\nthe ground that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act\nwhich tantamount to concealment of income and which came to light as a result of\ninformation gathered from DSIR. We find the Assessing Officer, rejecting the\nvarious explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee