RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

129 TTJ 438) and the hon'ble tribunal held as under: The original returns of income for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06 were filed within the time allowed under section 139(1). The search under section 132 in the case of the assessee was carried out on 9-12-2005 and the assessee filed return of income

AKTIEBOLAGET TETRA PAK,PUNE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.265 & 211/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) was completed on 28-03-2016. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s.148 dated 29-03-2019 on the ground that a sum of Rs.7,81,23,918/- declared by the assessee as non-taxable got accepted in the assessment as such, which ought to have been

AKTIEBOLAGET TETRA PAK,PUNE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.265 & 211/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) was completed on 28-03-2016. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s.148 dated 29-03-2019 on the ground that a sum of Rs.7,81,23,918/- declared by the assessee as non-taxable got accepted in the assessment as such, which ought to have been

DR. SHRI. GURUNATH SHANKARAPPA WACHECH,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dr. Shri Gurunath Shankarappa Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Wachche Solapur Plot No.13, S.No.316, Vishal Nagar Jule Solapur, Solapur-413004 Pan : Aalpw9544N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07-03-2022

129, as against valuation done by DVO at Rs.1,19,76,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the differential amount of Rs.31,31,871 was liable to be taxed in four years during which the construction of the building continued. He, therefore, initiated re-assessment proceedings for the year under consideration and accordingly made an addition of Rs.23

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 of the ITA,1961, when the foundation of such proceedings was a search and seizure action conducted u/s 132 of the ITA, 1961 at the premises of M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-Operative Society Credit Ltd. The assessment, if any, ought to have been initiated u/s 153C of the ITA, 1961. As such, the impugned notice issued

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 of the ITA,1961, when the foundation of such proceedings was a search and seizure action conducted u/s 132 of the ITA, 1961 at the premises of M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-Operative Society Credit Ltd. The assessment, if any, ought to have been initiated u/s 153C of the ITA, 1961. As such, the impugned notice issued

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

129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded." 8. On a bare perusal of the sub section-1 would reveal that powers of revision granted by section 263 to the learned Commissioner have four compartments. In the first place, the learned Commissioner may call

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Reassess. It is therefore requested that\nnotice may please be quashed.\n\n2. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings\ninitiated under section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on\nseveral counts. Thus, it is requested

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Reassess. It is therefore requested that\nnotice may please be quashed.\n\n2.\nOn the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings\ninitiated under section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on\nseveral counts. Thus, it is requested

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

Reassess. It is therefore requested that\nnotice may please be quashed.\n\n2. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings\ninitiated under section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on\nseveral counts. Thus, it is requested

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

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

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

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

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

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

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

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

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

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

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

reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act which will include section 11 as is in the present case. It will not be correct to say that while computing income under section 148 the entire gross receipts are to be taxed. Further, it is not the case

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded." 11. On a bare perusal of the sub section-1 would reveal that powers of revision granted by section 263 to the learned Commissioner have four compartments. In the first place, the learned Commissioner may call

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 21.12.2018. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- (i) The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs 1,14.25,000/- u/s 69A as unexplained money in respect of 50% of sale consideration on sale of property. 2 (ii)The Id CIT(A) erred