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

69 C of the Act is not the expenditure but it is basically the undisclosed income which has been applied for incurring the unrecorded expenditure. In our view, there is no merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has only declared the amount expenditure. We therefore, hold that to the extent of the income offered

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

69 C of the Act is not the expenditure but it is basically the undisclosed income which has been applied for incurring the unrecorded expenditure. In our view, there is no merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has only declared the amount expenditure. We therefore, hold that to the extent of the income offered

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

69 C of the Act is not the expenditure but it is basically the undisclosed income which has been applied for incurring the unrecorded expenditure. In our view, there is no merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has only declared the amount expenditure. We therefore, hold that to the extent of the income offered

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

69 C of the Act is not the expenditure but it is basically the undisclosed income which has been applied for incurring the unrecorded expenditure. In our view, there is no merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has only declared the amount expenditure. We therefore, hold that to the extent of the income offered

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

69 C of the Act is not the expenditure but it is basically the undisclosed income which has been applied for incurring the unrecorded expenditure. In our view, there is no merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has only declared the amount expenditure. We therefore, hold that to the extent of the income offered

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

69 C of the Act is not the expenditure but it is basically the undisclosed income which has been applied for incurring the unrecorded expenditure. In our view, there is no merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has only declared the amount expenditure. We therefore, hold that to the extent of the income offered

ANIL BABANLAL AGRAWAL,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

section 147/148 of the Act are relevant for making the assessments and also for making the additions based on the related seizure entries from the seized materials in Chhoriya group of cases. In the light of the above specific facts, ld. Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the assessment orders in these two cases and submitted that

LATE SHRI BABANLAL B AGARWAL,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALGAON

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

section 147/148 of the Act are relevant for making the assessments and also for making the additions based on the related seizure entries from the seized materials in Chhoriya group of cases. In the light of the above specific facts, ld. Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the assessment orders in these two cases and submitted that

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

u/s 270A of the Act. i. G R Infraprojects Limited (AY2020-21) (TS-17-HC-2024(RAJ) Dated 02.01.2024; ii. Global Coal and Mining Pvt. Ltd. (AY 2020-21) ITA No. 2682/Del/2024, dated 18.03.2025; iii. IIFL Samasta Finance Limited (AY 2020-21) ITA No. 1054/Bang/2024, dated 27.09.2024. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order

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

69 and u/s 69A were made by invoking explanation 3 to section 147 of the Act. Therefore in adjudicating the legal issue under challenge, we have to deal with relevant fraction of provisions of section 139, section 147, and 149 of the Act. 8. In terms of section 139(1)(b) of the Act, a person being other than company

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

reassessment proceedings when admittedly conditions specified u/s 147 of the ITA, 1961 for valid initiation were not satisfied in as much as all the facts were truly and fully disclosed in the original assessment proceedings and order was passed after due verification. As such, the addition was only the result of a change in opinion and the action

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. ATUL ASHOK PARAKH, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, hence the ground no. 2 of the appeal is dismissed.” 8. On the issue of addition u/s 69 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC accepted the explanation offered by the assessee before him and deleted the addition after recording his observations and findings as under : “6.3 It is apparent from

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. ATUL ASHOK PARAKH, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, hence the ground nos. 2(a) to 2(e) and 4 of the appeal are treated as dismissed.” 8. On the issue of addition u/s 69 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC accepted the explanation offered by the assessee before him and deleted the addition after recording his observations and findings

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

reassessment can be issued u/s. 148. Even after the insertion of section 142A there is no amendment in the language of section 147. Therefore, he condition prescribed u/s. 147 for reopening of assessment still exists.” 18. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) has validly found substance in the plea of the assessee that the Ld. AO cannot make

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

reassessment can be issued u/s. 148. Even after the insertion of section 142A there is no amendment in the language of section 147. Therefore, he condition prescribed u/s. 147 for reopening of assessment still exists.” 18. In our view, the Ld. CIT(A) has validly found substance in the plea of the assessee that the Ld. AO cannot make

ATUL VIJAY MADAN ,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1529/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Atul Vijay Madan, V The Dcit, 2 Pooja Apartment, Behind S Circle-1, Nashik. Karwa Mangal Karyalay, Sharanpur Road, Nashik-422002. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde– Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 13.05.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.45,00,000 Made By The A.O. U/S 69 Towards Alleged Unexplained Loan

69 of the Act. Accordingly amount of Rs.45,00,000/- is added to the total Income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act are initiated for concealment of income.” 5. During the assessment proceedings, assessee has submitted a ledger account which shows Opening Balance of Rs.56 lakhs loan given to Mr.Ramzan Kokani

DATTAPRASAD RADHAKISAN REVGADE,HIVARGAON vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra, Judicialmember & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1897/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dattaprasad Radhakisan V The Income Tax Officer, Revgade, S Ward-2, Ahmednagar. At Hivargaon Post Dongargaon, Tal Aklole, Ahmednagar – 422609. Pan: Cddpr8213C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna – Ar Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19 Dated 23.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant to such defective notice are liable to be quashed. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, the assessment order passed under section 147 r.ws 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and void 3 ITA No.1897/PUN/2025 [A] ab initio

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. PAN INTERNATIONAL, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.175/Pun/2020 & Co No. 23/Pun/2022 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Pan International, 347, Afl House, Off Dhole Patil Rd, Behind Hotel Meru, Pune – 411 001 . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Pan: Aabfp4234F & Cross Objector द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sharad Vaze Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Revenue Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 06/11/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Quashing The Order Of Assessment Dt. 10/03/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Pune[For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2008-09 On Technical-Cum-Legal Ground.

69,60,093/- by disallowing certain expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non- deduction of taxes therefrom and reassessed the taxable income u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at ₹2,73,20,830/-. 3.3 Aggrieved thereby the assessee challenged the addition on legal as well meritare grounds before the first appellate authority [for short

KAMLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

147 of the Act based on the subsequent developments on that issue. Further, assessee reasoned that the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is not applicable in view of the fact that bifurcation of interest under various sections of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were also not available. Assessee also relied on the provisions