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

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

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

22. In other words, while deciding the case of re-assessment, Courts have held that there are two aspects; the first is the change of opinion which can only arise in the case of assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act; where the return of income has only been processed and intimation issued under section

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

22. In other words, while deciding the case of re-assessment, Courts have held that there are two aspects; the first is the change of opinion which can only arise in the case of assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act; where the return of income has only been processed and intimation issued under section

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

VIJAYSHREE ALLOYS PUNE PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. “(22) Dividend includes xxxxxxxxxxxx (e) any payment by a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, of any sum (whether as representing a part of the assets of the company or otherwise) made after the 31st day of May, 1987, by way of advance or loan

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

SUNIL KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SANGLI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 2(22)(e) of the Act was in respect of Jay Maharashtra Consumers Pvt. Ltd., whereas the addition made by the Assessing Officer under the said provision is with regard to Apeksha Impex Pvt. Ltd. as evident from para 7 of the Assessing Officer‟s order. 4. The ld. AR of the assessee further stated that in the related

KAILASH KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SANGLI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 2(22)(e) of the Act was in respect of Jay Maharashtra Consumers Pvt. Ltd., whereas the addition made by the Assessing Officer under the said provision is with regard to Apeksha Impex Pvt. Ltd. as evident from para 7 of the Assessing Officer‟s order. 4. The ld. AR of the assessee further stated that in the related

AMIT KANHAYALAL GIDWANI,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.329/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Amit Kanhayalal Gidwani, C.S.No.34, Laxmi Bunglow, Revenue Colony, South Shivaji Nagar, Sangli – 416416 .......अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan : Aefpg7955P बनाम / V/S. Acit, ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Sangli

22)(e) – JMCPL: ₹ 88,30,000 Deemed dividend o/a of loan from AIPL to JMCPL: ₹ 36,50,000 Addition o/a of low withdrawals: ₹ 1,00,000 Total Assessed Income: ₹ 1,67,55,515 Rounded off u/s. 288A: ₹ 1,67,55,520 6. None of the above referred additions emanates from the reasons recorded vide page 9 of the Paper Book

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