DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

147,\nsection 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other

RAMLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147, section 140, 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

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147, section 140, 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

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147, section 140, 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

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147, section 140, 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

RAMANLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147, section 140, 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

147 of the Act. We find the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vaman International Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.1940 of 2017 has held that mere reliance by the Assessing Officer on information obtained from the Sales Tax Department or the statements of two persons made before the Sales Tax Department would

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

147 of the Act on\nthe ground that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act\nwhich tantamount to concealment of income and which came to light as a result of\ninformation gathered from DSIR. We find the Assessing Officer, rejecting the\nvarious explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee has not\nobtained

ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

147,\nsection 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other

AMBALAL GORAKH CHOUDHARI,PRAKASHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1422/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ambalal Gorakh Choudhari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Dhule. Legal Heir Anita Ambalal Chaudhari, Mukteshwar Mandir, At Post Prakasha, Taluka Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar- 425409. Pan : Afrpc1304D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Rathi Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Gurugram [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Assessing Officer & The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Making/Confirming Additions Of Rs. 1020740/- To Returned Income U/S.69A Of The Act, As Said Section Is Applicable Only When In Any Financial Year The Assessee Is Found To Be Owner Of Any Money, Bullion, Jewellery Or Any Other

292B, and continued with the reassessment. The court held that the petitioner's communication about the death of the assessee cannot be considered as participation in the proceedings, and thus, the notice issued under section 148 was deemed invalid. (ii) Vipin Walia v. Income-tax Officer [2016] 67 taxmanın.com 56 (Delhi) The High Court of Delhi dealt with

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

147,\nsection 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b)\nany books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

147,\nsection 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

147,\nsection 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n\n(b)\nany books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

147,\nsection 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b)\nany books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI vs. LATE SHRI SUBHASH SHANKAR WAINGANKAR, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI RUSHIKESH SUBHASH WAINGANKAR , RATNAGIRI

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the legal

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment or recomputation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1),— (a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

147 of the Act on\nthe ground that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act\nwhich tantamount to concealment of income and which came to light as a result of\ninformation gathered from DSIR. We find the Assessing Officer, rejecting the\nvarious explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee has not\nobtained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

147 of the Act on\nthe ground that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act\nwhich tantamount to concealment of income and which came to light as a result of\ninformation gathered from DSIR. We find the Assessing Officer, rejecting the\nvarious explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee has not\nobtained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

147 of the Act on\nthe ground that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act\nwhich tantamount to concealment of income and which came to light as a result of\ninformation gathered from DSIR. We find the Assessing Officer, rejecting the\nvarious explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee has not\nobtained

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

147 taxmann.com 288 (Allahabad) and argued that the purpose for having approval from Addl. CIT to ensure determination of correct tax and to protect interest of assessee by avoiding arbitrary, baseless addition. 17. Further, he drew our attention to the assessment orders for A.Ys. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, argued that the actual taxability u/s