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

SUBHASH RUNWAL,BIBWEWADI, PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(4) PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Subhash Runwal 204, Solitari-5, Nr. Kalyan Bhel, Bibwewadi Rd., Pune-411037. Pan: Adbpr7670R. . . . . . . . Appellant

u/s 148 r.w.s. 149(1)(b) r.w.s. 139(1)(b) of the Act. Hence, when the very basis of reasons recorded ‘cash deposits’ by the Ld. AO was ultimately not added, then the primary reason to believe that income had escaped assessment fails and such reassessment cannot be treated as a valid order in the eyes of law. ITAT-Pune

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

147, the impugned assessment proceedings are not valid in law. 13 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. Without prejudice to the above: c. Approval mechanical: The Approval is mechanical and does not show any application of mind on escapement of income and the material so as to show escapement of income. The approval is granted on the proposal and further directs

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

u/s 147 has to be quashed. 16. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Shodiman Investments (P) Ltd, 93 taxmann.com 153, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where Assessing Officer had issued a reassessment notice on the basis of intimation from

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

section 147 of the Act, was satisfactorily explained. 8. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of S V Jadhav vs. ITO reported in (2024) 163 taxmann.com 263 (Bom), it has been mentioned that the Hon’ble High Court applying the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

VINODKUMAR DHANULALJI SAWJI ,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of separate orders u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29/03/2022 & 28/03/2022 for the Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively. 2 ITA.Nos.1415 & 1416/PUN./2024 (Vinodkumar Dhanulalji Sawji) 2. There is a delay of 163 and 164 days in filing

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

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

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

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

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

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

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

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

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