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

u/s. 148 are explicit and good enough to make out a fit case for re-opening of the assessment. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned DRP erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT, Pune in the case of Cummins Inc. in ITA Nos.73&74/PN/2011 dtd. 8/08/2013 wherein the assessee

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

u/s. 148 are explicit and good enough to make out a fit case for re-opening of the assessment. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned DRP erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT, Pune in the case of Cummins Inc. in ITA Nos.73&74/PN/2011 dtd. 8/08/2013 wherein the assessee

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

reassessment u/s 147, the 'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended / enhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the celebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar- 268 ITR 332 (Bom)... (copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.) 14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of income As per facts

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

reassessment u/s 147, the 'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended / enhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the celebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar- 268 ITR 332 (Bom)... (copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.) 14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of income As per facts

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

reassessment u/s 147, the 'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended / enhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the celebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar- 268 ITR 332 (Bom)... (copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.) 14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of income As per facts

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

195 of the Income Tax Act cannot also be ignored in this context. It would be unrealistic to say that the said payment had no integral connection with the salary received by the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court and the authorities under the Act were right in holding that the said tax amount

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

195 of the Income Tax Act cannot also be ignored in this context. It would be unrealistic to say that the said payment had no integral connection with the salary received by the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court and the authorities under the Act were right in holding that the said tax amount

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

195 of the Income Tax Act cannot also be ignored in this context. It would be unrealistic to say that the said payment had no integral connection with the salary received by the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court and the authorities under the Act were right in holding that the said tax amount

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

195 of the Income Tax Act cannot also be ignored in this context. It would be unrealistic to say that the said payment had no integral connection with the salary received by the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court and the authorities under the Act were right in holding that the said tax amount

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

195 of the Income Tax Act cannot also be ignored in this context. It would be unrealistic to say that the said payment had no integral connection with the salary received by the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court and the authorities under the Act were right in holding that the said tax amount

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

195 of the Income Tax Act cannot also be ignored in this context. It would be unrealistic to say that the said payment had no integral connection with the salary received by the assessee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court and the authorities under the Act were right in holding that the said tax amount

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

u/s. 201(1) was passed. The ld. DR further contended that in view of the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2012 to section 9 and 195, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 148 r.w.s 147 of the Act. The ld. DR prayed for upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissing

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

u/s. 201(1) was passed. The ld. DR further contended that in view of the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2012 to section 9 and 195, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 148 r.w.s 147 of the Act. The ld. DR prayed for upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissing

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

u/s. 201(1) was passed. The ld. DR further contended that in view of the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2012 to section 9 and 195, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 148 r.w.s 147 of the Act. The ld. DR prayed for upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissing

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

u/s. 201(1) was passed. The ld. DR further contended that in view of the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2012 to section 9 and 195, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 148 r.w.s 147 of the Act. The ld. DR prayed for upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissing

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

reassessment u/s 147, the\n'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended /\nenhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the\ncelebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar-\n268 ITR 332 (Вот)... (сору enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.)\n14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of\nincome\nAs per facts

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

reassessment u/s 147, the\n'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended /\nenhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the\ncelebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar-\n268 ITR 332 (Вот)... (сору enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.)\n14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of\nincome\nAs per facts

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

reassessment u/s 147, the\n'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended /\nenhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the\ncelebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar-\n268 ITR 332 (Bom)... (сору enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.)\n14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of\nincome\nAs per facts

PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

195 ITR 144 (u), CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works, 231 ITR 53. 6. In the light of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, it is evident that the Assessing Officer failed to make necessary enquiries and verifications with regard to the facts of the case on account of which the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147