M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings as\nwell as passing of the impugned assessment order. Before us, the Ld. AR has\nstated that the assessee firm has not carried out any business transaction post\ndissolution of the firm. As per the direction of this Bench, the Ld. AR has also\nfiled further details specifically regarding the bank accounts operated by the\nfirm during

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

u/s 234 had been charged. 3. The Department of Income Tax, through its Officers send such letters and intimidate the Assessee, leading him to spend money on the proceedings besides causing mental anguish. The ITD may be directed to pay and amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Indian Army Welfare Fund as compensation for this frivolous action. ITA No.929/PUN/2023

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

u/s 234 had been charged. 3. The Department of Income Tax, through its Officers send such letters and intimidate the Assessee, leading him to spend money on the proceedings besides causing mental anguish. The ITD may be directed to pay and amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Indian Army Welfare Fund as compensation for this frivolous action. ITA No.929/PUN/2023

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

u/s 234 had been charged. 3. The Department of Income Tax, through its Officers send such letters and intimidate the Assessee, leading him to spend money on the proceedings besides causing mental anguish. The ITD may be directed to pay and amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Indian Army Welfare Fund as compensation for this frivolous action. ITA No.929/PUN/2023

VIVEKANAND TULSIRAM KHARADE (HUF),THANE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIR-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

147 of the Act, but however, dropped the said reopening vide its order dated 29-03-2001. 7. In the present proceedings, the assessee raised its objection before the CIT(A) vide its ground challenging reopening of assessment after lapse of 11 years from the end of the A.Y. 1994-95, violating the provisions of section

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings as\nwell as passing of the impugned assessment order. Before us, the Ld. AR has\nstated that the assessee firm has not carried out any business transaction post\ndissolution of the firm. As per the direction of this Bench, the Ld. AR has also\nfiled further details specifically regarding the bank accounts operated by the\nfirm during

NARENDRA KACHRULAL ABAD,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.866/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Narendra Kachrulal Abad, V The Income Tax Officer, Abad House, Nal Galli, S Ward-1, Jalna. Kadrabad, Jalna – 431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Acspa9531C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Aurangabadpassed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2009-10 Dated 30.03.2019, Emanating From Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 03.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal :

section 147 the item of income on which the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has made the enhancement, does not fall within the scope of reassessment u/s 147 of the Act. There was no information/record etc. before the Assessing Officer in there-assessment proceedings from which he could have noted that the item of income of Rs.29

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147 taxmann.com 126(Orissa) [(2022) taxmann.com 64(SC)] after 01.04.2021 under unamended section 148 of the Act. 3 Salil Gulati vs ACIT Applicability of first proviso to [(2023) 150 taxmann.com 50(SC)] section 149 and whether initiation of reassessment of proceedings during time-limit extended by TOLA are barred by limitation 4 Sahjeevan Cooperative Housing Society Reassessment was initiated

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147 taxmann.com 126(Orissa) [(2022) taxmann.com 64(SC)] after 01.04.2021 under unamended section 148 of the Act. 3 Salil Gulati vs ACIT Applicability of first proviso to [(2023) 150 taxmann.com 50(SC)] section 149 and whether initiation of reassessment of proceedings during time-limit extended by TOLA are barred by limitation 4 Sahjeevan Cooperative Housing Society Reassessment was initiated

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

150/-. Details called for in the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act were examined by the ld. Assessing Officer including the source of cash deposit, time deposit, investment in mutual funds, interest income other 2 Shri Upasani Kanyakumari Sansthan than interest on securities u/s.194A. After being satisfied with the details filed by the assessee, ld. AO concluded the assessment accepting

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

147 are applicable to\nfacts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be case where income chargeable\nto tax has escaped assessment.\n\nPlease acknowledge receipt of this letter\n\nBHARAT DEVRAJ SHEGAONKAR\nACIT CEN CIR 2, NASHIK\n\n5. He, therefore, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.03.2020. The assessee\nin response

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD vs. WOCKHARDT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.774/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 determining total income at Rs.435.18 crore, making afore-referred three disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) to the income earlier determined at Rs.160.90 crore. The ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment and also deleted the additions on merits, against which the Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions through

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

147 are applicable to\nfacts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be case where income chargeable\nto tax has escaped assessment.\nPlease acknowledge receipt of this letter\n\nBHARAT DEVRAJ SHEGAONKAR\nACIT CEN CIR 2, NASHIK\n\n5. He, therefore, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.03.2020. The assessee\nin response

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

147 are applicable to\nfacts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be case where income chargeable\nto tax has escaped assessment.\n\nPlease acknowledge receipt of this letter\n\nBHARAT DEVRAJ SHEGAONKAR\nACIT CEN CIR 2, NASHIK\n\n5. He, therefore, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.03.2020. The assessee\nin response

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

147 and 2 Vatsalabai Karbhari Deore hence, the notice u/s 148 issued on the basis of change of opinion, may be declared as null and void in law. 3] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of Rs.83,56,232 by taxing the unsecured loans received from three parties as unexplained cash credits without appreciating that

PRIYANVADA AMOL MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147 taxmann.com 288 (Allahabad) iii) ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. (2023) 150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) iv) ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC) 15. He accordingly submitted that the approval granted by the JCIT is not in accordance with law and is a conditional approval, therefore, it does not comply to the mandate of the statute and therefore

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147 taxmann.com 288 (Allahabad) iii) ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. (2023) 150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) iv) ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC) 15. He accordingly submitted that the approval granted by the JCIT is not in accordance with law and is a conditional approval, therefore, it does not comply to the mandate of the statute and therefore

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147 taxmann.com 288 (Allahabad) iii) ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. (2023) 150 taxmann.com 146 (Orissa) iv) ACIT vs. Serajuddin & Co. (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC) 15. He accordingly submitted that the approval granted by the JCIT is not in accordance with law and is a conditional approval, therefore, it does not comply to the mandate of the statute and therefore