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

10. The assessee is in appeal against the said exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act. The first plea which has been raised by the assessee is that in the absence of any tangible material for reason to believe that there is escapement of income, the action adopted by the Assessing Officer was without

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

10. The assessee is in appeal against the said exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act. The first plea which has been raised by the assessee is that in the absence of any tangible material for reason to believe that there is escapement of income, the action adopted by the Assessing Officer was without

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

10. The assessee is in appeal against the said exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act. The first plea which has been raised by the assessee is that in the absence of any tangible material for reason to believe that there is escapement of income, the action adopted by the Assessing Officer was without

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

reassessment, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. The Hon. Court held that the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 147, rendering the notice invalid. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the notice under Section 148 and allowed the petition of the assessee. (Relevant paragraphs 16 to 24). • In the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. ACIT

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

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

section 147(1) as they stood after the amendment of 1-4-1989 continue to hold the field.” 8. In light of the factual matrix of the instant case and the legal position set out above and in the absence of any material/evidence /judicial precedents brought on record by the Ld. AO in rebuttal of the above contention to enable

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

reassess such income and also any\nother income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to\nhis notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under section 147 of the\nAct\n28.1 The first proviso to section 147 is important. As per this proviso, where an\nassessment under subsection (3) of section 143 or section 147

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 1324, as the case may be, shall abate." What is clear from this is that Section 153A

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

reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.‖. 5.3 Before leaping to section 270A of the Act, we first consider section 270AA of the Act in order to find out whether the Form 68 filed by the Assessee Company on 06/10/2022

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This attitude of the appellant clearly demonstrated that he had evaded tax by not filing the return of income within the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the IT Act and also after receipt of notice u/s

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This attitude of the appellant clearly demonstrated that he had evaded tax by not filing the return of income within the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the IT Act and also after receipt of notice u/s

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This attitude of the appellant clearly demonstrated that he had evaded tax by not filing the return of income within the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the IT Act and also after receipt of notice u/s

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This attitude of the appellant clearly demonstrated that he had evaded tax by not filing the return of income within the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the IT Act and also after receipt of notice u/s

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