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

u/s 147 of the Act, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court accepted the contention of the petitioner and quashed the re-assessment proceedings by observing as under: “12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, we have perused the record. At the outset, we may observe that the (2023) 149 taxmann.com

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. SECO TOOLS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objections of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

45. Further, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to reasons recorded for reopening of assessment dated 26.07.2013 in the case of Sandvik Australia Pty Ltd., relating to assessment year 2008-09 along with Note filed in the computation of income and relevant Annexure to Form No.3CEB, which are attached at pages 46 to 51 of Compilation No.II

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

45,690/-\n7.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against this order also.\nThe Ld. CIT(A) in the consolidated order dated 10.10.2023 passed the order i.e. in\nrespect of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 and u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act\nand dismissed both the appeals.\n8.\nAggrieved with such order

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

u/s. 148 are explicit and good enough to make out a fit case for re-opening of the assessment. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned DRP erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT, Pune in the case of Cummins Inc. in ITA Nos.73&74/PN/2011 dtd. 8/08/2013 wherein the assessee

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

u/s. 148 are explicit and good enough to make out a fit case for re-opening of the assessment. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned DRP erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT, Pune in the case of Cummins Inc. in ITA Nos.73&74/PN/2011 dtd. 8/08/2013 wherein the assessee

KAMLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

u/s 147 initiated by issue of notice/s served on 08/03/2011 after expiry of four years in absence of reason to believe that there was failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment within the meaning of first proviso to Section 147. 8. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought my attention to the additional

MANGLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

u/s 147 initiated by issue of notice/s served on 08/03/2011 after expiry of four years in absence of reason to believe that there was failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment within the meaning of first proviso to Section 147. 8. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought my attention to the additional

KALYANCHAND MANAKCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

u/s 147 initiated by issue of notice/s served on 08/03/2011 after expiry of four years in absence of reason to believe that there was failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment within the meaning of first proviso to Section 147. 8. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought my attention to the additional

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

reassessment u/s 147, the 'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended / enhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the celebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar- 268 ITR 332 (Bom)... (copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.) 14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of income As per facts

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

reassessment u/s 147, the 'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended / enhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the celebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar- 268 ITR 332 (Bom)... (copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.) 14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of income As per facts

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

reassessment u/s 147, the 'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended / enhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the celebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar- 268 ITR 332 (Bom)... (copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.) 14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of income As per facts

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

45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer either to proceed under Chapter

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

45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer either to proceed under Chapter

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

45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer either to proceed under Chapter

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,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

45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer either to proceed under Chapter

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

45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer either to proceed under Chapter

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,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

45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer either to proceed under Chapter

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

45,890) after adjusting the incremental liability that may arise on disallowing health and education Cess. He, therefore, submitted that there is no basis for holding that the assessee has under-reported its income or done any act without good faith and due diligence and hence the provisions of section 270A of the Act do not apply 5 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025

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

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

45,690/- 7. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against this order also. The Ld. CIT(A) in the consolidated order dated 10.10.2023 passed the order i.e. in respect of order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 and u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act and dismissed both the appeals. 8. Aggrieved with such order