INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. NARENDRA SAMPATLAL BAFNA, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the addition made of Rs.6,20,00,000 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act on account of unexplained cash loans availed from various parties through Sh. Sachin M. Nahar. All these grounds of appeal are taken up together for adjudication. An analysis of letter No.Pn/DCIT. Cen. Cir.1(1)/Sharing

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This attitude of the appellant clearly demonstrated that he had evaded tax by not filing the return of income within the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the IT Act and also after receipt of notice u/s

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This attitude of the appellant clearly demonstrated that he had evaded tax by not filing the return of income within the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the IT Act and also after receipt of notice u/s

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This attitude of the appellant clearly demonstrated that he had evaded tax by not filing the return of income within the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the IT Act and also after receipt of notice u/s

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment proceedings by challenging the assumption of jurisdiction in spite of knowing that it is not maintainable in accordance with law. This attitude of the appellant clearly demonstrated that he had evaded tax by not filing the return of income within the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the IT Act and also after receipt of notice u/s

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

147 of the Act after recording\nreasons which have already been reproduced earlier. Since the\nassessee could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding\nthe loan of Rs.6,20,00,000/- provided by Shri Sachin Nahar, the\nAssessing Officer, invoking the provisions of section 69A of the\nAct read with section 115BBE made addition to the total income\nof the assessee

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

147 of the Act after recording\nreasons which have already been reproduced earlier. Since the\nassessee could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding\nthe loan of Rs.6,20,00,000/- provided by Shri Sachin Nahar, the\nAssessing Officer, invoking the provisions of section 69A of the\nAct read with section 115BBE made addition to the total income\nof the assessee

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

69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article or thing (hereinafter

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

69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article or thing (hereinafter

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

69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article or thing (hereinafter

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

69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article or thing (hereinafter

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

69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article or thing (hereinafter

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

69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article or thing (hereinafter

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

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 or firm

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

VIJAYKUMAR MANGILALJI CHORDIYA,NASHIK vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2013-14

69A of the Act read with section 115BBE made addition to the total income of the assessee. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC quashed the re-assessment proceedings holding that the proper course of action before the Assessing Officer should have been u/s 153C of the Act. He also deleted the addition on merit by holding that the said addition

GULAMAHEMAD HAMIDULLA KHAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE

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

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

reassessment proceeding under the new provisions of section 147 as inserted by finance act 2021, on the basis of information gathered during the search conducted on M/s Renukamata Multistate Urban Co-operative Credit Society, therefore the action is illegal as the proceedings ought to have been initiated u/s 153C, therefore consequential order passed is bad in law and deserves