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 under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 153D. the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148." We are in complete agreement

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

147 of the Act had not made the addition of\nRs.7,62,67,463/- which was returned back to these shell companies. Since the\n8\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nassessee in his statement recorded /s 132(4) of the Act at the time of search u/s 132\nhad admitted to the fact that he had taken accommodation entries from

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

147 of the Act had not made the addition of\nRs.7,62,67,463/- which was returned back to these shell companies. Since the\n8\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nassessee in his statement recorded /s 132(4) of the Act at the time of search u/s 132\nhad admitted to the fact that he had taken accommodation entries from

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that relevant facts in assessee’s former twin appeals hardly require us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as its first and foremost substantive grievance challenging correctness

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that relevant facts in assessee’s former twin appeals hardly require us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as its first and foremost substantive grievance challenging correctness

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that relevant facts in assessee’s former twin appeals hardly require us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as its first and foremost substantive grievance challenging correctness

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

147 was not valid and the proper course of action that should have been taken by the Assessing Officer was u/s 153C as the provisions of section 153C of the Act are clearly applicable to the facts of the case. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC on the issue of validity of re-assessment proceedings

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

25-03-2008 and to the AO on 21-04-2008. It was contended that the assertion in the reasons to believe shows reasons to believe have been anti-dated. We note that the Hon‟ble High Court held the reasons were not recorded before the impugned notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and quashed the said reassessment notice

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

25-03-2008 and to the AO on 21-04-2008. It was contended that the assertion in the reasons to believe shows reasons to believe have been anti-dated. We note that the Hon‟ble High Court held the reasons were not recorded before the impugned notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and quashed the said reassessment notice

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

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 was also introduced from AY 2017-18 only. As such, for all years till AY 2016-17, the 'reasons' formed for the belief of 'escapement of income' were specious and leading

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

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 was also introduced from AY 2017-18 only. As such, for all years till AY 2016-17, the 'reasons' formed for the belief of 'escapement of income' were specious and leading

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

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 was also introduced from AY 2017-18 only. As such, for all years till AY 2016-17, the 'reasons' formed for the belief of 'escapement of income' were specious and leading

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

25 ITR 447). the Madras High Court held that there is no requirement in any of the provisions of the Act or any section that the reasons which induced the CIT to accord sanction to proceed u/s 34 must also be communicated to the assessee and "the requirement regarding communication of the reasons to the Commissioner is, in our opinion

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

25,28,401/- by making two disallowances in the assessment order viz. (a) disallowance of employee‘s share of provident contribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs.16,61,049/- and (b) disallowance of education cess claimed as deduction u/s 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,22,79,936/-. It is an undisputed fact that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

147 by issuing notice u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 25.07.2022 by recording\nas under:\n\"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE\nINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nOFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nCIRCLE 7, PUNE\nTo\nKOLTE-PATIL\nLIMITED\nINTEGRATED\nTOWNSHIPS\nSURVEY NO. 74, MARUNJIHINJEWADI\nMARUNJI, KASARSAI ROAD, TAL MULSHI\nPUNE PUNE 411057, Maharashtra India\nPAN:\n Assessment

M/S LORGAN LIFESTYLE LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD14(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

25,98,42,967/- on account of bad debt written off by the Appellant in the books of accounts made to the total income of the Appellant. The Appellant may be allowed to add, amend or alter the above grounds in the interest of natural justice.” 4.1 Assessee has also raised following additional ground of appeal

SACHIN MOHANLAL CHORDIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as we do not intend to adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3280 & 3281/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sachin Mohanlal Chordia, V The Income Tax Officer, B-101, Isha Emerald, S. Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewdi, Kondhwa Road, Marketyard, Pune- 411037. Pan: Aanpc8554C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Amit Bobade & Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Are Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 For Ay 2016-17, 2017-18 Passed On 22/10/2025 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders U/S 147 Rws 144 Dated 11/05/2023 & 23/05/2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

147 to 151 of the Act after April 1, 2021 (herein after referred to as “new regime”) since they were remedial, beneficial and meant to protect the rights and interests of the assesses. Being aggrieved by the decisions of various High Courts, the Income tax Department challenged the same before the Apex Court. Decision in case of Ashish Agarwal

SACHIN MOHANLAL CHORDIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as we do not intend to adjudicate other grounds raised by the assessee

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3280 & 3281/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Sachin Mohanlal Chordia, V The Income Tax Officer, B-101, Isha Emerald, S. Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewdi, Kondhwa Road, Marketyard, Pune- 411037. Pan: Aanpc8554C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Amit Bobade & Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Are Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 For Ay 2016-17, 2017-18 Passed On 22/10/2025 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders U/S 147 Rws 144 Dated 11/05/2023 & 23/05/2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:

147 to 151 of the Act after April 1, 2021 (herein after referred to as “new regime”) since they were remedial, beneficial and meant to protect the rights and interests of the assesses. Being aggrieved by the decisions of various High Courts, the Income tax Department challenged the same before the Apex Court. Decision in case of Ashish Agarwal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 147 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the information received in the context of the facts on record The impugned notice is bad-in-law, as it has not been issued by the Assessing Officer on his satisfaction that there is reason to believe, that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment