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

292\n(Bombay)]\n14.\nThe Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the notice issued u/s\n148 of the Act is invalid since there was no income represented in the form of asset\nwhich has escaped from assessment for the year under consideration. He drew the\nattention of the Bench to the provisions of section 149 which were

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

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

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

147 of the ITA,1961, when the foundation of such proceedings was a search and seizure action conducted u/s 132 of the ITA, 1961 at the premises of M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-Operative Society Credit Ltd. The assessment, if any, ought to have been initiated u/s 153C of the ITA, 1961. As such, the impugned notice issued

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

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

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

147 of the ITA,1961, when the foundation of such proceedings was a search and seizure action conducted u/s 132 of the ITA, 1961 at the premises of M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-Operative Society Credit Ltd. The assessment, if any, ought to have been initiated u/s 153C of the ITA, 1961. As such, the impugned notice issued

RATANLAL C. BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Accordingly. These assessee’s three appeals raising the above stated identical issues as partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.01 To 03/Pun/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 To 2007-08

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. A.Y. : 2005-06 to 2007-08 Shri Ratanlal C. Bafna, 2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s instant three appeals raise identical issue(s) of validity of the impugned section 148/147 proceedings followed

RATANLAL C. BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Accordingly. These assessee’s three appeals raising the above stated identical issues as partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.01 To 03/Pun/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 To 2007-08

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. A.Y. : 2005-06 to 2007-08 Shri Ratanlal C. Bafna, 2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s instant three appeals raise identical issue(s) of validity of the impugned section 148/147 proceedings followed

RATANLAL C. BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Accordingly. These assessee’s three appeals raising the above stated identical issues as partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.01 To 03/Pun/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 To 2007-08

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. A.Y. : 2005-06 to 2007-08 Shri Ratanlal C. Bafna, 2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s instant three appeals raise identical issue(s) of validity of the impugned section 148/147 proceedings followed

SHRI UPASANI KANYAKUMARI SANSTHAN,RAHATA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147 of the Act, for subjecting to tax the income for the impugned year merely on account of absence of registration u/s 12A. 8. The contention of the Revenue on the other hand is that since the assessee failed to fulfill the condition stipulated for claiming exemption u/s 11 &12 of the Act of filing return of income along with

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

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

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

KARAN TEJRAJ BUILDERS,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2 , PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.428/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karan Tejraj Builders, Unit 501, Karan Tej Bonita, Cts No. 1187/16, Off Ghole Road, Pune – 411 005. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaifk1891P

reassessment proceedings. The AO had not brought on record any independent inquiries regarding the cash received of Rs. 25 lakhs by the assessee firm from Shri Sagar Bagul and whether the same was paid for purchase or a flat or otherwise given. The fact is that the evidences were not found to indict the assessee in receiving the on money

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

147 of the Act following the due procedure laid therefore. 4.4 In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, the appellant filed his ITR correcting spurious claim of deductions and thus restored original state as was then returned in the ITR filed u/s ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 20 ITA No.54 & 55/PUN/2023

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1),NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

147 of the Act following the due procedure laid therefore. 4.4 In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, the appellant filed his ITR correcting spurious claim of deductions and thus restored original state as was then returned in the ITR filed u/s ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 20 ITA No.54 & 55/PUN/2023

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , LATUR vs. VIMAL JAYDEV ARYA, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) after obtaining the approval of the competent authority. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021 asking the assessee to file the return of income, in response thereto. The assessee however, did not file any return in response to the said notice