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

u/s 68 of the Act but upon examination during reassessment, determined that it properly falls within the ambit of section 115BBC of the Act. Both provisions address unexplained or unverified receipts as section 68 of the Act dealing with unexplained cash received by charitable or religious institutions. Thus, the underlying facts and source of escapement remain the same and only

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

u/s 68 of the Act but upon examination during reassessment, determined that it properly falls within the ambit of section 115BBC of the Act. Both provisions address unexplained or unverified receipts as section 68 of the Act dealing with unexplained cash received by charitable or religious institutions. Thus, the underlying facts and source of escapement remain the same and only

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

u/s 68 of the Act but upon examination during reassessment, determined that it properly falls within the ambit of section 115BBC of the Act. Both provisions address unexplained or unverified receipts as section 68 of the Act dealing with unexplained cash received by charitable or religious institutions. Thus, the underlying facts and source of escapement remain the same and only

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

section 151 have not been complied with in this case and respectfully following the judgments of the Honorable courts, I am of the considered view that notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law and the reopening u/s 147 is not sustainable and liable to be quashed. Hence, the notice u/s. 148 issued by the AO and the consequent assessment

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

u/s 147 w.r.t. S. 115BBC is without any\nappropriate procedure and such taxation ought not to sustain.\n13. Conention-2-S. 68 role v. S. 115BBC role-effect of Jet\nAirways ratio:\nAnother issue is, the roles performed by these two sections. S.\n68 converts a non-income credit entry item in books/accounts\ninto, 'income' per se. In other words

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

u/s 147 w.r.t. S. 115BBC is without any\nappropriate procedure and such taxation ought not to sustain.\n13. Conention-2-S. 68 role v. S. 115BBC role-effect of Jet\nAirways ratio:\nAnother issue is, the roles performed by these two sections. S.\n68 converts a non-income credit entry item in books/accounts\ninto, 'income' per se. In other words

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

u/s 147 w.r.t. S. 115BBC is without any\nappropriate procedure and such taxation ought not to sustain.\n13. Conention-2-S. 68 role v. S. 115BBC role-effect of Jet\nAirways ratio:\n9\nITA Nos.1121 to 1126/PUN/2024\nRajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha\nAnother issue is, the roles performed by these two sections. S.\n68 converts a non-income credit entry item

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

reassess such income and also any\nother income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to\nhis notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under section 147 of the\nAct\n28.1 The first proviso to section 147 is important. As per this proviso, where an\nassessment under subsection (3) of section 143 or section 147

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

reassess such income and also any\nother income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to\nhis notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under section 147 of the\nAct\n28.1 The first proviso to section 147 is important. As per this proviso, where an\nassessment under subsection (3) of section 143 or section 147

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

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

reassessment proceedings. Thus there was no borrowed satisfaction on the part of the AO. There was independent application of mind on the part of the AO. Further reliance is placed upon clause (b) of explanation 2 to provisions of section 147 of the Act as on the basis of the facts of the case the AO had the basis

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

section 68 by proving the identity and 5 creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions. Relying on various decisions, it was argued that the addition u/s 68 is not in accordance with law. However, the CIT(A) while deleting the addition on merit, dismissed the grounds challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings by observing

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

reassessment proceedings in view of subsequent decision of privy council. Further, also considered the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. A.J. Zaveri reported in 68 ITR 594 which held that the decision of appellate authority on the same facts may constitute information within the meaning of section

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

reassessment proceedings in view of subsequent decision of privy council. Further, also considered the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. A.J. Zaveri reported in 68 ITR 594 which held that the decision of appellate authority on the same facts may constitute information within the meaning of section

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

68 and 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

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

Reassess. It is therefore requested that\nnotice may please be quashed.\n\n2.\nOn the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings\ninitiated under section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on\nseveral counts. Thus, it is requested

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

Reassess. It is therefore requested that\nnotice may please be quashed.\n\n2. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings\ninitiated under section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on\nseveral counts. Thus, it is requested

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

reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.‖. 5.3 Before leaping to section 270A of the Act, we first consider section 270AA of the Act in order to find out whether the Form 68 filed by the Assessee Company on 06/10/2022

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

u/s 147 has to be quashed. 16. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Shodiman Investments (P) Ltd, 93 taxmann.com 153, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where Assessing Officer had issued a reassessment notice on the basis of intimation from