DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

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 period of Section 153A to 153D. the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148." We are in complete agreement

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. The first proviso to section 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief

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

section 147 of the Act." From Para 10, 11 and 12 of the assessment order, it is clear that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated on the basis of the statement of Sh. Sachin M Nahar and based on material in seized documents. There is no Para 13 in the assessment order which has been referred in the Assessment Order

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

147 of the Act had not made the addition of\nRs.7,62,67,463/- which was returned back to these shell companies. Since the\n8\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nassessee in his statement recorded /s 132(4) of the Act at the time of search u/s 132\nhad admitted to the fact that he had taken accommodation entries from

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

147 of the Act had not made the addition of\nRs.7,62,67,463/- which was returned back to these shell companies. Since the\n8\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nassessee in his statement recorded /s 132(4) of the Act at the time of search u/s 132\nhad admitted to the fact that he had taken accommodation entries from

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

5) The order made under sub-section (4) shall be final. (6) No appeal under section 246A or an application for revision under section 264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application

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. 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

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

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

section 147 of the Act. Since admittedly the Assessing Officer in the instant case has reopened the assessment on the basis of information that emerged at the time of search action u/s 132 of the Act at the premises of M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multistate Credit Society Ltd.. Therefore, we hold that the initiation of proceedings u/s 147

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

section 147 of the Act. Since admittedly the Assessing Officer in the instant case has reopened the assessment on the basis of information that emerged at the time of search action u/s 132 of the Act at the premises of M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multistate Credit Society Ltd.. Therefore, we hold that the initiation of proceedings u/s 147

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

section 147 of the Act. Since admittedly the Assessing Officer in the instant case has reopened the assessment on the basis of information that emerged at the time of search action u/s 132 of the Act at the premises of M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multistate Credit Society Ltd.. Therefore, we hold that the initiation of proceedings u/s 147

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

section 147 of the Act. Since admittedly the Assessing Officer in the instant case has reopened the assessment on the basis of information that emerged at the time of search action u/s 132 of the Act at the premises of M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multistate Credit Society Ltd.. Therefore, we hold that the initiation of proceedings u/s 147

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 is after expiry of the four years from the end of A.Y.2012-13 and therefore the reassessment proceeding are initiated beyond the time limit and are thus time barred and bad in law and not sustainable. 4. Learned CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in confirming the addition made by A.O. without considering the fact that reassessment

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 is after expiry of the four years from the end of A.Y.2012-13 and therefore the reassessment proceeding are initiated beyond the time limit and are thus time barred and bad in law and not sustainable. 4. Learned CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in confirming the addition made by A.O. without considering the fact that reassessment

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 is after expiry of the four years from the end of A.Y.2012-13 and therefore the reassessment proceeding are initiated beyond the time limit and are thus time barred and bad in law and not sustainable. 4. Learned CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in confirming the addition made by A.O. without considering the fact that reassessment

LATE SHRI BABANLAL BHIKULAL AGRAWAL,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 Late Shri Babanlal Bhikulal Agrawal, Through L/H Shri Anil Babanlal Agrawal, 84-85, Main Road, Raver, Dist. Jalgaon-425508 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabha7676P बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-2(2), ……""यथ" / Respondent Jalgaon. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri Vijay Netke सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Nashik Dated 28.10.2014 For The Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1] The Ld.Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Penalty Imposed Of Rs. 10,12,126/- U/S.271(1)(C) On Account Of Alleged Addition Made At Rs.32,13,100/(Inclusive Of Enhanced Income), Without Establishing Any Alleged Facts/Thing & Bringing Any Corroborative Evidence On Record, Even In Penalty Proceedings & Hence, Penalty Be Deleted 2] On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The I T Act, Without Rebutting Any Contention Of The Appellant Filed Before Him. Therefore

147 / 148 of the Act. Accordingly, we hold so. Consequently, re-assessment order passed under section 148 of the Act does not stand. The Assessing Officer is thus, directed to cancel the same. Consequently, the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed and we hold that assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is null and void. Consequently

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

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous