INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

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 18 February, 2025 WP3057_2019.DOC period of Section 153A to 153D, the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section

ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

147, 148, 149, 151 & 153.\n28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section\n153A and Section 153C. Corollary being that after seizing of\noperational 18 February, 2025 WP3057_2019.DOC period of Section\n153A to 153D, the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the\nscope of newly substituted Section 148.\"\nWe are in complete agreement

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

28 March 2013 is merely on the basis of change of opinion of\nthe Assessing Officer from that held earlier during the course of assessment\nproceeding leading to the order dated 12 October 2010. This change of\nopinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that\nincome chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.\"\n17. Since an order under section

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

28 March 2013 is merely on the basis of change of opinion of\nthe Assessing Officer from that held earlier during the course of assessment\nproceeding leading to the order dated 12 October 2010. This change of\nopinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that\nincome chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.\"\n17. Since an order under section

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, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

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

28-05-2007. It was claimed that in the reasons recorded the AO mentioned share transfer from carrying sale on 26-03-2004. The said share transfer form was furnished by the assessee only on 25-03-2008 and to the AO on 21-04-2008. It was contended that the assertion in the reasons to believe shows reasons

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

28-05-2007. It was claimed that in the reasons recorded the AO mentioned share transfer from carrying sale on 26-03-2004. The said share transfer form was furnished by the assessee only on 25-03-2008 and to the AO on 21-04-2008. It was contended that the assertion in the reasons to believe shows reasons

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

147 of the Act after recording\nreasons which have already been reproduced earlier. Since the\nassessee could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding\nthe loan of Rs.6,20,00,000/- provided by Shri Sachin Nahar, the\nAssessing Officer, invoking the provisions of section 69A of the\nAct read with section 115BBE made addition to the total income\nof the assessee

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

147 of the Act after recording\nreasons which have already been reproduced earlier. Since the\nassessee could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding\nthe loan of Rs.6,20,00,000/- provided by Shri Sachin Nahar, the\nAssessing Officer, invoking the provisions of section 69A of the\nAct read with section 115BBE made addition to the total income\nof the assessee

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.\nAs per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal [167\ntaxmann.com 70], the notice under the new provision of section 148 have to be\nseen considering the proviso to section 149. We find in the instant case for both\nthe assessment years the Assessing Officer had initially issued notice u/s 148 in\nJune

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

28. It is however seen that the explanation of the assessee is for argument sake & far away from the reality. It has been accepted globally that DCF models have shortcomings. Small changes in Inputs can result in large changes in the value of a company. Investors must constantly second-guess valuations; the inputs that produce these valuations are always changing

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

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 the Return

VIJAYKUMAR MANGILALJI CHORDIYA,NASHIK vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2013-14

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

NANDKUMAR NAMDEORAO DIWATE,KOLHAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1161/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nandkumar Namdeorao Diwate, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), 492, C-Ward, Kolhapur Opp. Main Rajaram Highschool, Juna Rajwada, Karveer, Kolhapur, Maharashtra-416001 Pan : Aeqpd 1603L Appellant Respondent

u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’)for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. Return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 was filed on 01-03-2012 declaring total income of Rs.1,53,010/-. The said return 2 of income was processed u/s.143

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

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

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

reassessment were totally incorrect. 4. Prayer Assessee submits that appeals preferred by I-T department are incorrect and as such deserve to be dismissed.” 28. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being in accordance with law should be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue be dismissed. 29. We have heard the rival arguments