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

ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

10 of the paper book filed by the Revenue, he\nsubmitted that fourth entry of Rs.25 lakh also appears in the name of A.Lodha and\nnot in the name of the assesse. Referring to page 11 of the paper book filed by the\nRevenue, he submitted that fifth and sixth entries of Rs.10 lakh and Rs.15 lakh also\nappear

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

SHRI 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

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

147.\nAs per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal [167\ntaxmann.com 70], the notice under the new provision of section 148 have to be\nseen considering the proviso to section 149. We find in the instant case for both\nthe assessment years the Assessing Officer had initially issued notice u/s 148 in\nJune

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, 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

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

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

1) dated 09.03.2021 in proceedings 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

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

1) dated 09.03.2021 in proceedings 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

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

1) dated 09.03.2021 in proceedings 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

SACHIN MOHANLAL CHORDIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as we do not intend to adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3280 & 3281/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sachin Mohanlal Chordia, V The Income Tax Officer, B-101, Isha Emerald, S. Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewdi, Kondhwa Road, Marketyard, Pune- 411037. Pan: Aanpc8554C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Amit Bobade & Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Are Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 For Ay 2016-17, 2017-18 Passed On 22/10/2025 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders U/S 147 Rws 144 Dated 11/05/2023 & 23/05/2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

147 to 151 of the Act after April 1, 2021 (herein after referred to as “new regime”) since they were remedial, beneficial and meant to protect the rights and interests of the assesses. Being aggrieved by the decisions of various High Courts, the Income tax Department challenged the same before the Apex Court. Decision in case of Ashish Agarwal

SACHIN MOHANLAL CHORDIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as we do not intend to adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3280 & 3281/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sachin Mohanlal Chordia, V The Income Tax Officer, B-101, Isha Emerald, S. Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewdi, Kondhwa Road, Marketyard, Pune- 411037. Pan: Aanpc8554C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Amit Bobade & Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Are Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 For Ay 2016-17, 2017-18 Passed On 22/10/2025 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders U/S 147 Rws 144 Dated 11/05/2023 & 23/05/2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

147 to 151 of the Act after April 1, 2021 (herein after referred to as “new regime”) since they were remedial, beneficial and meant to protect the rights and interests of the assesses. Being aggrieved by the decisions of various High Courts, the Income tax Department challenged the same before the Apex Court. Decision in case of Ashish Agarwal

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

section 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