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 of income u/s 153A of the Act and not under section 148 of the Act to make an assessment u/s 147 of the Act. 56

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

Section 80IA/IB of the Act.\nIt must follow that there is due application of mind by the Assessing\nOfficer to the issue raised.\nThe above observations apply on all fours to this Petition, so far as the\nRevenue's submission of no change of opinion is concerned.\n11. The further submission of Mr. Walve that in the absence

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act has determined the total income at Rs.19,60,971/-, however, in the computation statement he has determined the same at Rs.31,97,261/- which is not correct. 7. The second plank of his argument is that the assessee has purchased the property during the year 2012 for a consideration of Rs.46

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CLARION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently. He submits that if an assessment was made u/s. 143(3) of the Act and no action can be taken u/s. 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from

CLARION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently. He submits that if an assessment was made u/s. 143(3) of the Act and no action can be taken u/s. 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147 of the Act which was reopened based on the change on opinion without bringing any fresh tangible material on record and thereby further erred in overlooking the fact that the issue of taxation of share premium was duly examined during the course of original assessment proceedings and thus, the said reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147 of the Act which was reopened based on the change on opinion without bringing any fresh tangible material on record and thereby further erred in overlooking the fact that the issue of taxation of share premium was duly examined during the course of original assessment proceedings and thus, the said reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147 of the Act which was reopened based on the change on opinion without bringing any fresh tangible material on record and thereby further erred in overlooking the fact that the issue of taxation of share premium was duly examined during the course of original assessment proceedings and thus, the said reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147 of the Act which was reopened based on the change on opinion without bringing any fresh tangible material on record and thereby further erred in overlooking the fact that the issue of taxation of share premium was duly examined during the course of original assessment proceedings and thus, the said reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

147 of the Act which was reopened based on the change on opinion without bringing any fresh tangible material on record and thereby further erred in overlooking the fact that the issue of taxation of share premium was duly examined during the course of original assessment proceedings and thus, the said reassessment order deserves to be quashed and set aside

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

56,81,448/-. From the facts discussed herein above, I am satisfied that the assessee has routed his undisclosed income through the paper companies and Credit entries appearing in the bank account of Shri Manoj Chhajed from Kolkata based paper companies are in the form of accommodation entries taken by giving equal amount of cash. Therefore, I have reason

SUNANDA CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

56,671/- in respect of interest paid to co- operative society u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the Assessing Officer erred in invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) in as much

SUNAND CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

56,671/- in respect of interest paid to co- operative society u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the Assessing Officer erred in invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) in as much

SHRI GURUDEV CHANDRASHEKHAR KARANTH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CIT(DRP-3), MUMBAI

In the result, Grounds Number 1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar V Income Tax Department Karanth, S. Cit(Drp-3), Mumbai-1. 21 Cozy Retreat, Sindh Colony, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Cgnpk6203J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.C.Malakar – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.12.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19, Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 20.12.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 23.12.2024 for the A.Y.2018-19, emanating from the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s.144C(5) of the Act, dated 20.12.2024. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.147/PUN/2025 [A] “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

SACHIN NAGRAJ CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

56,027/- + Rs.53,13,000/-) on 23.03.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act. 4. The assessee challenged the ex-parte order before the Ld. CIT(A). Although the appeal was filed late by 14 days, the Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay and decided the appeal ex-parte for non-compliance of notices of hearing

DINDAYAL MAGASVARGIYA SAHAKARI SOOT GIRNI LTD ,WAGHWADI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SANGLI., NISHANT COLONY

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2325/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dindayal Magasvargiya Vs. Acit, Circle Sangli, Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., Sangli. At Waghwadi, Post Kameri, Tal. Walwa, Sangli- 415403. Pan : Aaaad0254E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri R. Y. Balawade Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac 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 & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 For Ay 2013-14, Being The Year Beyond 4 Years & For Which Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Has Already Been Passed, Thereby

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for AY 2013-14 by recording the reason to believe which is based on audit objection. We submit that the reason based on such borrowed satisfaction cannot be the basis of reopening the concluded assessment. Therefore, entire proceedings are void ab initio. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds on the facts and in the circumstances

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

REASSESSMENT: a. No reasons are recorded The proposal for reopening as part of the Approval has been placed on record. The said document states that it is a proposal for recording reasons for initiating action u/s 147 and not the reasons recorded by AO. In the said document, there is no whisper about reason to believe

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

u/s 147 r. w.s 143(3) of the act which was in itself without following the law and the provisions of Income-Tax Act, 1961, though not appealed, deserves to be deleted. Just and proper relief be granted to me in this respect. ITA Nos.729 to 732/PUN/2015 ITA Nos.733 to 736/PUN/2015 3. Without prejudice to other grounds raised, on facts