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

e portal on or before 28/03/2024.\nSANTOSH KUMAR\n6.\nRejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, he set aside the\norder dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer disposing of the objections\nof the assessee to the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued u/s 148 of the Act for proper\nverification of fact and to re-examine the issues. The relevant

KHANDESH BUILDERS LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.268/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Khandesh Builders Ltd., 7, Shivaji Nagar, Jalgaon – 425 001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan: Aaack 8222 H बनाम / V/S. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-1, Jalgaon.

22)(e) on account of amount received by appellant company from its subsidiary company for the purpose of business of holding appellant company & appellant company is having a running account with its subsidiary company viz. J.M. Cotton Ginning & Pressing Co. 2 Khandesh Builders Ltd., (A) Pvt. Ltd. & the credit amounts are utilized by the appellant company for its business

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

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings under Section 147 and has strenuously submitted\nthat the Assessing Officer has rightly observed that the interest\nderived from the credit provided to its member is deductible\nunder Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, however, on verification of\nthe case record at the stage of scrutiny assessment, it was\nnoticed that the assessee had received interest

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

22,800/-. We find the\nAssessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 and the notice u/s 148 of the\nAct dated 26.03.2018 was issued and served on the assessee, in response to which\nthe assessee submitted that the original return filed may be treated as in response to\nthe notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee thereafter asked

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

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

E account as 'income' only'. Categorising Appellant's 'donations' claim, as Section 68 specified 'income' would not have made any change in assessment. The Special Scheme of Taxation of Section 68 income u/s 115BBE at a Special Rate was introduced only from AY 2017-18 and onwards. Even the negative condition of denial of set- off of any other LOSS

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

E account as 'income' only'. Categorising Appellant's 'donations' claim, as Section 68 specified 'income' would not have made any change in assessment. The Special Scheme of Taxation of Section 68 income u/s 115BBE at a Special Rate was introduced only from AY 2017-18 and onwards. Even the negative condition of denial of set- off of any other LOSS

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

E account as 'income' only'. Categorising Appellant's 'donations' claim, as Section 68 specified 'income' would not have made any change in assessment. The Special Scheme of Taxation of Section 68 income u/s 115BBE at a Special Rate was introduced only from AY 2017-18 and onwards. Even the negative condition of denial of set- off of any other LOSS

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. NARENDRA SAMPATLAL BAFNA, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

e) if the Assessing Officer is going to rely on any judgment/order of any Tribunal or Court reference/citation of these judgments/orders shall be provided along with notice for personal hearing so that the assessee will be able to deal with/distinguish these judgments/orders. During assessment proceedings, the assessee also requested AO to grant personal hearing in the matter and cross examination

JAYANT KANERIA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1719/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short "the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 A.Y. 2007-08, Jayant Kaneria, 2. Coming to assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground that the impugned reopening set into motion by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable in law, we find that the following reasons

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

reassessment proceedings that were pending would also come under the ambit of the first proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. 6.5 The second proviso to section 12A(2) also provides that no action u/s 147 of the Act shall be taken merely for non-registration of trust or institution. Reading this proviso with the first proviso to section

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

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

E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues : (i) Bonus or Commission to Employee; (ii) Investment/Advances/Loans and (iii) AYs 2018-19 & 2020-21 Deduction from total income under Chapter VI-A. Accordingly, statutory notice(s) u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee seeking information regarding the deduction claimed by the assessee, in response

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 24.03.2017 of the CIT(A)-1, Aurangabad relating to assessment year 2009-10. 2. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of running a solvent extraction plant at Nanded. It uses soya

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM..OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

22,930/- under the head income from other sources' in the return of income filed against notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The AO levied penalty of Rs.3,27,993/- u/s 270A of the Act being 50% of tax determined for underreporting of income. 4.3. On perusal of sec 270A, it is observed that the sub- section 2

SUNAND CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

E R PER BENCH: The above 2 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 06.01.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune-12 relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. For the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case

SUNANDA CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

E R PER BENCH: The above 2 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 06.01.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune-12 relating to assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. For the sake of convenience, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case

VIJAYKUMAR MANGILALJI CHORDIYA,NASHIK vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2013-14

E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.03.2024 of the CIT(A) / NFAC relating to assessment year 2013-14. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 19.07.2013 declaring total income of Rs.3