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

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

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\nproceedings under Section 147 and has strenuously submitted\nthat the Assessing Officer has rightly observed that the interest\nderived from the credit provided to its member is deductible\nunder Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, however, on verification of\nthe case record at the stage of scrutiny assessment, it was\nnoticed that the assessee had received interest

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

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

u/s. 1 13/PUN/2024 2014-15 14.11.2023 Rs.8,96,41,183/- 143(3) r.w.s.147 2 14/PUN/2024 2015-16 14.11.2023 Rs.18,04,78,120/- 143(3) 3 15/PUN/2024 2016-17 14.11.2023 Rs.6,65,05,360/- 143(3) 4 16/PUN/2024 2017-18 14.11.2023 Rs.9,25,05,871/- 143(3) 5 17/PUN/2024 2018-19 14.11.2023 Rs.3,79,79,669/- 143(3) r.w.s.143

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

u/s. 1 13/PUN/2024 2014-15 14.11.2023 Rs.8,96,41,183/- 143(3) r.w.s.147 2 14/PUN/2024 2015-16 14.11.2023 Rs.18,04,78,120/- 143(3) 3 15/PUN/2024 2016-17 14.11.2023 Rs.6,65,05,360/- 143(3) 4 16/PUN/2024 2017-18 14.11.2023 Rs.9,25,05,871/- 143(3) 5 17/PUN/2024 2018-19 14.11.2023 Rs.3,79,79,669/- 143(3) r.w.s.143

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

u/s. 1 13/PUN/2024 2014-15 14.11.2023 Rs.8,96,41,183/- 143(3) r.w.s.147 2 14/PUN/2024 2015-16 14.11.2023 Rs.18,04,78,120/- 143(3) 3 15/PUN/2024 2016-17 14.11.2023 Rs.6,65,05,360/- 143(3) 4 16/PUN/2024 2017-18 14.11.2023 Rs.9,25,05,871/- 143(3) 5 17/PUN/2024 2018-19 14.11.2023 Rs.3,79,79,669/- 143(3) r.w.s.143

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

u/s. 1 13/PUN/2024 2014-15 14.11.2023 Rs.8,96,41,183/- 143(3) r.w.s.147 2 14/PUN/2024 2015-16 14.11.2023 Rs.18,04,78,120/- 143(3) 3 15/PUN/2024 2016-17 14.11.2023 Rs.6,65,05,360/- 143(3) 4 16/PUN/2024 2017-18 14.11.2023 Rs.9,25,05,871/- 143(3) 5 17/PUN/2024 2018-19 14.11.2023 Rs.3,79,79,669/- 143(3) r.w.s.143

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

u/s. 1 13/PUN/2024 2014-15 14.11.2023 Rs.8,96,41,183/- 143(3) r.w.s.147 2 14/PUN/2024 2015-16 14.11.2023 Rs.18,04,78,120/- 143(3) 3 15/PUN/2024 2016-17 14.11.2023 Rs.6,65,05,360/- 143(3) 4 16/PUN/2024 2017-18 14.11.2023 Rs.9,25,05,871/- 143(3) 5 17/PUN/2024 2018-19 14.11.2023 Rs.3,79,79,669/- 143(3) r.w.s.143

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

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire on 16-08-2011 calling for details on 39 points in the original scrutiny assessment proceedings and raised several questions with respect to the claim made u/s. 10B of the Act and in response to which, the assessee had filed all the details as sought by the AO. He submits

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire on 16-08-2011 calling for details on 39 points in the original scrutiny assessment proceedings and raised several questions with respect to the claim made u/s. 10B of the Act and in response to which, the assessee had filed all the details as sought by the AO. He submits

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

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

u/s 80(P)(2)(d) and specifically under S 80(P)(2)(a) (i) of the IT Act. That Sec 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is not applicable for the simple reason that the surplus funds have not been utilized in the ordinary course of business of assessee. !t is not the business of the assessee to deposit

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

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

TUSHAR 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

TUSHAR 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

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