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 in respect of all 6 years can be made even if original returns are already processed u/s 143(1)(a) and the Assessing Officer has power u/s 153A to make assessment for all six years and compute total income of assessee, including undisclosed income, notwithstanding that returns for these years have already been processed u/s

BHANUDAS DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

37 of Bundle No. 1 and the aggregate of the transactions on this pages is Rs.2,25,24,837/-. Whereas, the actual consideration for the same transaction as per agreement is Rs.4,07,14,000/-. The page No. 3 of Bundle No. 1 shows payments of Rs.83,50,000/- to different persons in family on 04-02-2006. The balance

BADRINATH DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

37 of Bundle No. 1 and the aggregate of the transactions on this pages is Rs.2,25,24,837/-. Whereas, the actual consideration for the same transaction as per agreement is Rs.4,07,14,000/-. The page No. 3 of Bundle No. 1 shows payments of Rs.83,50,000/- to different persons in family on 04-02-2006. The balance

VITTHAL DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

37 of Bundle No. 1 and the aggregate of the transactions on this pages is Rs.2,25,24,837/-. Whereas, the actual consideration for the same transaction as per agreement is Rs.4,07,14,000/-. The page No. 3 of Bundle No. 1 shows payments of Rs.83,50,000/- to different persons in family on 04-02-2006. The balance

RAMDAS BHANUDASTUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

37 of Bundle No. 1 and the aggregate of the transactions on this pages is Rs.2,25,24,837/-. Whereas, the actual consideration for the same transaction as per agreement is Rs.4,07,14,000/-. The page No. 3 of Bundle No. 1 shows payments of Rs.83,50,000/- to different persons in family on 04-02-2006. The balance

BHANUDAS DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

37 of Bundle No. 1 and the aggregate of the transactions on this pages is Rs.2,25,24,837/-. Whereas, the actual consideration for the same transaction as per agreement is Rs.4,07,14,000/-. The page No. 3 of Bundle No. 1 shows payments of Rs.83,50,000/- to different persons in family on 04-02-2006. The balance

SOPAN DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

37 of Bundle No. 1 and the aggregate of the transactions on this pages is Rs.2,25,24,837/-. Whereas, the actual consideration for the same transaction as per agreement is Rs.4,07,14,000/-. The page No. 3 of Bundle No. 1 shows payments of Rs.83,50,000/- to different persons in family on 04-02-2006. The balance

DNYANESHWAR DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

37 of Bundle No. 1 and the aggregate of the transactions on this pages is Rs.2,25,24,837/-. Whereas, the actual consideration for the same transaction as per agreement is Rs.4,07,14,000/-. The page No. 3 of Bundle No. 1 shows payments of Rs.83,50,000/- to different persons in family on 04-02-2006. The balance

VITTHAL DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

37 of Bundle No. 1 and the aggregate of the transactions on this pages is Rs.2,25,24,837/-. Whereas, the actual consideration for the same transaction as per agreement is Rs.4,07,14,000/-. The page No. 3 of Bundle No. 1 shows payments of Rs.83,50,000/- to different persons in family on 04-02-2006. The balance

SANDIP BHANUDAS TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

37 of Bundle No. 1 and the aggregate of the transactions on this pages is Rs.2,25,24,837/-. Whereas, the actual consideration for the same transaction as per agreement is Rs.4,07,14,000/-. The page No. 3 of Bundle No. 1 shows payments of Rs.83,50,000/- to different persons in family on 04-02-2006. The balance

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of „change of opinion‟ is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of „change of opinion‟ as an in-built test to check abuse of power

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of „change of opinion‟ is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of „change of opinion‟ as an in-built test to check abuse of power

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

u/s 37 of the Act was considered under reported is in consequence of misreporting of income under section 270A(2) rws 270(9) of the Act. 5.2 For the purpose of evaluating the correctness of rival submissions addressed we deem it apposite to extract section 270A & 270AA of the Act herein below: 270A. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting

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

147 order, appears to have proceeded on the analogy that, some taxable income has escaped assessment. As against, vide Section 115BBC, mere rate of tax is differentiated from normal income. As stated earlier, entire charge of the learned AO at the stage of formation of belief of 'escapement of income' by resorting to Section

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

147 order, appears to have proceeded on the analogy that, some taxable income has escaped assessment. As against, vide Section 115BBC, mere rate of tax is differentiated from normal income. As stated earlier, entire charge of the learned AO at the stage of formation of belief of 'escapement of income' by resorting to Section

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

147 order, appears to have proceeded on the analogy that, some taxable income has escaped assessment. As against, vide Section 115BBC, mere rate of tax is differentiated from normal income. As stated earlier, entire charge of the learned AO at the stage of formation of belief of 'escapement of income' by resorting to Section

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners