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 by issuing a notice u/s 153C of the Act instead erroneously u/s 148 of the Act. 57. We agree with the contention of the assessee that, since, section 153C of the Act overrides the provisions of the sections 147

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

147 taxmann.com 262 (Orissa) Export oriented undertaking (Section 10A v. Section 10B) Assessment year 2011-12 8 Skyline Developers Assessee filed return and claimed deduction under section 10A During assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to file tax computation sheet and Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had been claiming deduction under section 10B since its incorporation -Pursuant to show cause notice

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

reassessment under Section 147 of the Act\nwould become impermissible\nThe assumption that provisions of Section 153C of the Act precludes\nany proceeding under Section 147 of the Act by virtue of the non\nobstante clause. is unpersuasive. The scheme of Sections 153C of the\nAct indicates that the said provision was enacted to simplify the\nprocedure, while maintaining

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

reassessment under Section 147 of the Act\nwould become impermissible\nThe assumption that provisions of Section 153C of the Act precludes\nany proceeding under Section 147 of the Act by virtue of the non\nobstante clause. is unpersuasive. The scheme of Sections 153C of the\nAct indicates that the said provision was enacted to simplify the\nprocedure, while maintaining

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

reassessment under Section 147 of the Act\nwould become impermissible\nThe assumption that provisions of Section 153C of the Act precludes\nany proceeding under Section 147 of the Act by virtue of the non\nobstante clause. is unpersuasive. The scheme of Sections 153C of the\nAct indicates that the said provision was enacted to simplify the\nprocedure, while maintaining

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

57,21,478/- and Rs.3,95,75,541/- whereas it was estimated by the DVO at Rs.5,03,08,440/- and Rs.7,74,05,494/- in AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The difference of Rs.2,45,86,962/- and Rs.3,78,29,953/- in the cost of investment declared by the assessee and estimated

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

57,21,478/- and Rs.3,95,75,541/- whereas it was estimated by the DVO at Rs.5,03,08,440/- and Rs.7,74,05,494/- in AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. The difference of Rs.2,45,86,962/- and Rs.3,78,29,953/- in the cost of investment declared by the assessee and estimated

SAFEPACK INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, the assessee unsuccessfully objected to the initiation of re-assessment. The AO completed the assessment by reducing the amount of deduction u/s. 80HHC to Rs.5,66,035/- as against the original claim of the assessee at Rs.9,46,897/- Reduction in the amount of deduction took place not only on account of reducing

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. H.A. DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 478/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

57,010/- u/s.80IB (10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In scrutiny assessment proceedings, assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) was accepted vide order dated 19.10.2006. Subsequently, the assessment in the case of assessee was reopened and notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 18.01.2007. In re-assessment proceedings, assessee

AYOKI FABRICON PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2155/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ayoki Fabricon Pvt. Ltd., 137 To 139, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Pune. Pan : Aabca5780F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 14.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.1,10,53,748/- U/S 32(1)(Iia) On New Plant & Machinery On The Ground That The Assessee Was Not Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Or Production Of Any Article Or Thing. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring The Fact That – I) The Details Furnished To The Assessing Officer By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Were Same As Were Furnished During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) & Therefore.

section 147 of the Act. 5 8. Explaining the background facts of the case, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment proceedings were finalized by the Assessing Officer, who passed the well reasoned order for the earlier assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12. In these assessment years, the assessee made a similar claim of additional

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

section 148 could be issued. 46. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 405 ITR 512 (Guj), he submitted that where reassessment was made on basis of information received from Principal DIT (Investigation) that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries by way of share application provided

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has become academic. The ld. AR for the assessee has also 15 M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited. not made any submissions in respect of ground No. 1. Thus, the ground No. 1 is dismissed as academic. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07 is partly

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has become academic. The ld. AR for the assessee has also 15 M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited. not made any submissions in respect of ground No. 1. Thus, the ground No. 1 is dismissed as academic. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07 is partly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD.,, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has become academic. The ld. AR for the assessee has also 15 M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited. not made any submissions in respect of ground No. 1. Thus, the ground No. 1 is dismissed as academic. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07 is partly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD.,, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has become academic. The ld. AR for the assessee has also 15 M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited. not made any submissions in respect of ground No. 1. Thus, the ground No. 1 is dismissed as academic. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07 is partly

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has become academic. The ld. AR for the assessee has also 15 M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited. not made any submissions in respect of ground No. 1. Thus, the ground No. 1 is dismissed as academic. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07 is partly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. POONA CLUB LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

147 of the Act and, therefore, the reassessment proceedings are not valid in law. Accordingly, we quash the reassessment proceedings. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.890/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2006-07 stands allowed. ITA Nos.891 to 893/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2007-08 to 2009-10 – By Assessee : 14. Since the facts and issues involved

POONA CLUB LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

147 of the Act and, therefore, the reassessment proceedings are not valid in law. Accordingly, we quash the reassessment proceedings. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.890/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2006-07 stands allowed. ITA Nos.891 to 893/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2007-08 to 2009-10 – By Assessee : 14. Since the facts and issues involved

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. POONA CLUB LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

147 of the Act and, therefore, the reassessment proceedings are not valid in law. Accordingly, we quash the reassessment proceedings. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.890/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2006-07 stands allowed. ITA Nos.891 to 893/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2007-08 to 2009-10 – By Assessee : 14. Since the facts and issues involved