VILSON ROOFING PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 956/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vilson Roofing Products Pvt. Ltd., 1St Lane, Opp. Prataprao Jagdale Hall, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur, Pin – 416 008 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan: Aaccv0661M

201-02 (SC) examining the power of court to investigate the belief of the AO has held as under: “All that is necessary to give special jurisdiction under section 147(a) is that the Assessing Officer had when he assumed jurisdiction some prims facie grounds for thinking that there has been some non-disclosure of material facts. Whether these grounds

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 189 of\nthe Act and upholding the impugned assessment order in case of a dissolved\nfirm for the relevant AY 2017-18 i.e. post dissolution when the firm is not even\nin existence.\n6.\nThe Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the Ld.\nAO and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.\n7.\nWe have heard

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 189 of\nthe Act and upholding the impugned assessment order in case of a dissolved\nfirm for the relevant AY 2017-18 i.e. post dissolution when the firm is not even\nin existence.\n6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the Ld.\nAO and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.\n7. We have heard

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

201(1)/201(1A) was passed treating the assessee in default on the above scores. On the basis of this information, the Assessing Officer (AO) recorded reasons for reassessment on 31-03-2017 and issued notice u/s.148 of the Act. The assessment was finalized u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 determining total income at Rs.435.18 crore, making afore-referred three disallowance u/s.40

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the provisions contained in section 12A(b) were only directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “8. Coming to the first argument that Section 12A(b) is mandatory, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee relies on a judgment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the provisions contained in section 12A(b) were only directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “8. Coming to the first argument that Section 12A(b) is mandatory, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee relies on a judgment

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the provisions contained in section 12A(b) were only directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “8. Coming to the first argument that Section 12A(b) is mandatory, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee relies on a judgment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the provisions contained in section 12A(b) were only directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “8. Coming to the first argument that Section 12A(b) is mandatory, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee relies on a judgment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the provisions contained in section 12A(b) were only directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “8. Coming to the first argument that Section 12A(b) is mandatory, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee relies on a judgment

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the provisions contained in section 12A(b) were only directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “8. Coming to the first argument that Section 12A(b) is mandatory, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee relies on a judgment

LAXMI BABU DEBNATH,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2876 & 2877/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 201-12 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business S Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune – 411001. Pan: Acpyd2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhishek Meshtram - Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income

201-12 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business s Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near RTO, Pune – 411001. PAN: ACPYD2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – AR Revenue by Shri Abhishek Meshtram - Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 10/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/02/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD

LAXMI BABU DEBNATH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7 (1), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2876 & 2877/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 201-12 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business S Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune – 411001. Pan: Acpyd2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhishek Meshtram - Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income

201-12 Laxmi Babu Debnath, V The Income Tax Officer, Level 3, Riverside Business s Ward-7(1), Pune. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near RTO, Pune – 411001. PAN: ACPYD2630F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – AR Revenue by Shri Abhishek Meshtram - Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 10/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 20/02/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD

ABDULWAHID ABDULKARIM QURESHI,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

201, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2022) 444 ITR 41, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh in the case of Yuvraj Vs. ITO and others reported in (2022) 444 ITR 329. Hon’ble Court has held that the impugned notices in all these batch

ABDULWAHID ABDULKARIM QURESHI,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

201, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2022) 444 ITR 41, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh in the case of Yuvraj Vs. ITO and others reported in (2022) 444 ITR 329. Hon’ble Court has held that the impugned notices in all these batch