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

234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. i) Wherever, the A.O. found the provisions of the section 269SS / 269T are violated, separate proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D / 271E should be submitted. j) Wherever necessary, A.O. should forward third party information to the A.O. of such party. 3. The orders alongwith the demand notice

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

234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. i) Wherever, the A.O. found the provisions of the section 269SS / 269T are violated, separate proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D / 271E should be submitted. j) Wherever necessary, A.O. should forward third party information to the A.O. of such party. 3. The orders alongwith the demand notice

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

234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. i) Wherever, the A.O. found the provisions of the section 269SS / 269T are violated, separate proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D / 271E should be submitted. j) Wherever necessary, A.O. should forward third party information to the A.O. of such party. 3. The orders alongwith the demand notice

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

234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. i) Wherever, the A.O. found the provisions of the section 269SS / 269T are violated, separate proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D / 271E should be submitted. j) Wherever necessary, A.O. should forward third party information to the A.O. of such party. 3. The orders alongwith the demand notice

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

234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. i) Wherever, the A.O. found the provisions of the section 269SS / 269T are violated, separate proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D / 271E should be submitted. j) Wherever necessary, A.O. should forward third party information to the A.O. of such party. 3. The orders alongwith the demand notice

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

234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. i) Wherever, the A.O. found the provisions of the section 269SS / 269T are violated, separate proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D / 271E should be submitted. j) Wherever necessary, A.O. should forward third party information to the A.O. of such party. 3. The orders alongwith the demand notice

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

234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. i) Wherever, the A.O. found the provisions of the section 269SS / 269T are violated, separate proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D / 271E should be submitted. j) Wherever necessary, A.O. should forward third party information to the A.O. of such party. 3. The orders alongwith the demand notice

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

234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. i) Wherever, the A.O. found the provisions of the section 269SS / 269T are violated, separate proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D / 271E should be submitted. j) Wherever necessary, A.O. should forward third party information to the A.O. of such party. 3. The orders alongwith the demand notice

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

234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. i) Wherever, the A.O. found the provisions of the section 269SS / 269T are violated, separate proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D / 271E should be submitted. j) Wherever necessary, A.O. should forward third party information to the A.O. of such party. 3. The orders alongwith the demand notice

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

234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. i) Wherever, the A.O. found the provisions of the section 269SS / 269T are violated, separate proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D / 271E should be submitted. j) Wherever necessary, A.O. should forward third party information to the A.O. of such party. 3. The orders alongwith the demand notice

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

section 147, reproduced in preceding paragraph, it is evident that the said proviso is applicable where an assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and in such cases for reopening the assessments, the income chargeable to tax is required to have been escaped assessment for the reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. PARTH MULTITRADE PVT LTD, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2008-09

reassessment proceedings are therefore, liable to be quashed. 4.5 On the other hand, in the remand report, the Add. CIT has also accepted that the AO has taken the approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, 11(2), Mumbai instead of specified authority as prescribed in law. 4.6 In this regard, the appellant has relied on the following judicial pronouncements

M/S. SHANTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, RATNAGIRI

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 374 & 375/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 M/S Shanti Construction Company Ram Lane, Ratnagiri. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan : Abhfs1628N बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ward-2, Ratnagiri. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee. Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Two Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 30/01/2020 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Separate Orders Of Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ratnagiri [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 26/12/2011 & 11/09/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) & 220(2) Respectively, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 1999-2000. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 16

147 of the Act. Therefore Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the same to the file of the A.O. with directions. The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dt. 20th August 2010 issued the direction to the A.O. when the A.O. had lost his jurisdiction over the case. In view of this the assessment order

M/S. SHANTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, RATNAIRI

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 374 & 375/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 M/S Shanti Construction Company Ram Lane, Ratnagiri. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan : Abhfs1628N बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Ward-2, Ratnagiri. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee. Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Two Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 30/01/2020 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Separate Orders Of Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ratnagiri [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 26/12/2011 & 11/09/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) & 220(2) Respectively, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 1999-2000. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 16

147 of the Act. Therefore Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the same to the file of the A.O. with directions. The Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dt. 20th August 2010 issued the direction to the A.O. when the A.O. had lost his jurisdiction over the case. In view of this the assessment order

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.

234B, 244A & 234D are applicable in the appellant’s case as the demand has arisen as a result of reassessment U/s.147 of the Act for the first time & the refund has been issued to the appellant. 11) In the facts, circumstances & in view of admission of appellant’s writ petition by jurisdictional Bombay High Court learned CIT Appeals-II, Nashik

SHRIKANT CHANDRAKANT LOKHANDE,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2696/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

234B(1) "(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where, in any financial year, an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or, where the advance tax paid by such assessee under the provisions of section 210 is less than ninety per cent of the assessed

GOLE PRECISION TOOLS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee are partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

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

147 prior to the assessee’s letter dated 24-02-2014 requesting the Assessing Officer to treat the return of income filed as return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Drive Shaft (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra) has held that the assessee

GOLE PRECISION TOOLS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee are partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

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

147 prior to the assessee’s letter dated 24-02-2014 requesting the Assessing Officer to treat the return of income filed as return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Drive Shaft (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra) has held that the assessee