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

54 taxmann.com 66 is also relevant. In this case, the AO issued a notice to the assessee seeking an explanation as to why the deduction claimed under section 80HHC should not be recomputed in view of the loss in trading activity being ignored and 90 per cent of other income (like interest) being not correctly taken. The assessee raised objection

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, 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

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

54 on account of investment in two properties and in respect of capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee

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

54 on account of investment in two properties and in respect of capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee

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

54 on account of investment in two properties and in respect of capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee

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

54 on account of investment in two properties and in respect of capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee

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

54 on account of investment in two properties and in respect of capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee

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

54 on account of investment in two properties and in respect of capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

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

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

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

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

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

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

reassess the income chargeable to tax, if he has reason to believe that income J.V.Salunke,PA WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The word "reason" in the phrase "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment order, the A.O has initiated penalty u/s 270A on a vague charge of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' also in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s 270A, the exact limb of section 270A(9) which has been allegedly violated by the assessee has not been specified and hence, the 7 ITA No.59/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 penalty order passed u/s 270A

SUBHASH RUNWAL,BIBWEWADI, PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(4) PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Subhash Runwal 204, Solitari-5, Nr. Kalyan Bhel, Bibwewadi Rd., Pune-411037. Pan: Adbpr7670R. . . . . . . . Appellant

54,75,000/- as against the information received through Annual Information Return [‘AIR’ hereinafter] on the basis of which case was re-opened. The assessee vide various notice issued to him u/s 148 & followed by 142(1) of the Act was called upon to explain nature & source such cash deposits. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 16 Subhash Runwal

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

54,721/- 36,27,634/- 17,75,913/- 2009-10 73,76,220/- 1,44,27,092/- 70,50,872/- 2010-11 2,57,21,478/- 5,03,08,440/- 2,45,86,962/- 2011-12 3,95,75,541/- 7,74,05,494/- 3,78,29,953/- 2012-13 6,70,456/- 13,11,340/- 6,40,884/- Total

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

54,721/- 36,27,634/- 17,75,913/- 2009-10 73,76,220/- 1,44,27,092/- 70,50,872/- 2010-11 2,57,21,478/- 5,03,08,440/- 2,45,86,962/- 2011-12 3,95,75,541/- 7,74,05,494/- 3,78,29,953/- 2012-13 6,70,456/- 13,11,340/- 6,40,884/- Total

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

Section 69C of ITA, 1961 amounting to Rs.1,52,62,200 and Rs.9,15,732 respectively thereby confirming the assessed income to the tune of Rs.3,41,20,562/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,79,42,630/- 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the reassessment proceedings when admittedly conditions specified u/s 147