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

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. 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

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

147, the impugned assessment proceedings are not valid in law. 13 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. Without prejudice to the above: c. Approval mechanical: The Approval is mechanical and does not show any application of mind on escapement of income and the material so as to show escapement of income. The approval is granted on the proposal and further directs

AYOKI FABRICON PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2155/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ayoki Fabricon Pvt. Ltd., 137 To 139, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Pune. Pan : Aabca5780F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 14.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.1,10,53,748/- U/S 32(1)(Iia) On New Plant & Machinery On The Ground That The Assessee Was Not Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Or Production Of Any Article Or Thing. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring The Fact That – I) The Details Furnished To The Assessing Officer By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Were Same As Were Furnished During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) & Therefore.

section 147 of the Act. 5 8. Explaining the background facts of the case, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment proceedings were finalized by the Assessing Officer, who passed the well reasoned order for the earlier assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12. In these assessment years, the assessee made a similar claim of additional

AKTIEBOLAGET TETRA PAK,PUNE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.265 & 211/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) was completed on 28-03-2016. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s.148 dated 29-03-2019 on the ground that a sum of Rs.7,81,23,918/- declared by the assessee as non-taxable got accepted in the assessment as such, which ought to have been

AKTIEBOLAGET TETRA PAK,PUNE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.265 & 211/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) was completed on 28-03-2016. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s.148 dated 29-03-2019 on the ground that a sum of Rs.7,81,23,918/- declared by the assessee as non-taxable got accepted in the assessment as such, which ought to have been

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

147 is permissible even if the Assessing officer gathers his reasons to believe from the very same record as has been the subject matter of the completed assessment proceedings. There might indeed be a presumption that the assessment proceedings have been regularly conducted, but there can be no presumption that even when the order of assessment is silent, all possible

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

147 is permissible even if the Assessing officer gathers his reasons to believe from the very same record as has been the subject matter of the completed assessment proceedings. There might indeed be a presumption that the assessment proceedings have been regularly conducted, but there can be no presumption that even when the order of assessment is silent, all possible

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

255 (SC), he submitted that it has been categorically observed that any claim for giving benefit of Section 11 on the basis of information supplied subsequent to the completion of assessment would mean that the assessment order will have to be re-opened and the Act does not contemplate such re-opening of the assessment. Therefore, in view

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

255 (SC), he submitted that it has been categorically observed that any claim for giving benefit of Section 11 on the basis of information supplied subsequent to the completion of assessment would mean that the assessment order will have to be re-opened and the Act does not contemplate such re-opening of the assessment. Therefore, in view

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

255 (SC), he submitted that it has been categorically observed that any claim for giving benefit of Section 11 on the basis of information supplied subsequent to the completion of assessment would mean that the assessment order will have to be re-opened and the Act does not contemplate such re-opening of the assessment. Therefore, in view

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

255 (SC), he submitted that it has been categorically observed that any claim for giving benefit of Section 11 on the basis of information supplied subsequent to the completion of assessment would mean that the assessment order will have to be re-opened and the Act does not contemplate such re-opening of the assessment. Therefore, in view

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

255 (SC), he submitted that it has been categorically observed that any claim for giving benefit of Section 11 on the basis of information supplied subsequent to the completion of assessment would mean that the assessment order will have to be re-opened and the Act does not contemplate such re-opening of the assessment. Therefore, in view

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

255 (SC), he submitted that it has been categorically observed that any claim for giving benefit of Section 11 on the basis of information supplied subsequent to the completion of assessment would mean that the assessment order will have to be re-opened and the Act does not contemplate such re-opening of the assessment. Therefore, in view

SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. We note that the assessee is an individual and in the reassessment proceedings carried out by Ld. AO based on the information about cash deposit in saving bank account with M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 2,32,53,205/-, the assessee

SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. We note that the assessee is an individual and in the reassessment proceedings carried out by Ld. AO based on the information about cash deposit in saving bank account with M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 2,32,53,205/-, the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. AVESTA COMPUTERS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2070 & 2071/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Avesta Computers Pvt. Ltd., Kapil Complex, Baner Road, Baner, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411045 Pan: Aabca4736F

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). ITA Nos.2070 & 2071/PUN/2016 2 2. Both the appeals filed by Revenue on same issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, reference is being made to the facts and issues