INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

69C of the Act.\n8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on\nmerit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on the\nground that in absence of any tangible material, the Assessing Officer cannot\nreopen the assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant

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

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

MRS NEHA VITTHAL DIMBLE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment proceedings\nwhich constrained the Ld. AO to complete the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s.144B\nof the Act on 19.02.2024 at an assessed income of Rs.83,31,620/- by making\naddition of - (i) Rs.66,65,000/- in respect of cash deposits in bank treating the\nsame as unexplained money under section 69A; (ii) Rs.14,08,073/- in respect\nof purchase

JIVARAM MAGAJI CHAOUDHARY,PUNE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 7, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1392/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.4, Road No.5, Snehdeep Palace, Tingrenagar, Pune- 411032. Pan : Aalpc3973B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By Shri Uma Shankar Prasad : Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable

69C of the Act. 5. In view of the above, the assessee has wrongly claimed an additional benefit of deduction of Rs 68,32,775/- while calculating the capital gain arising as a result of the sale of the land. In view of the above discussions, this additional benefit claimed by the assessee is hereby disallowed and is added

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

147 are applicable to\nfacts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be case where income chargeable\nto tax has escaped assessment.\n\nPlease acknowledge receipt of this letter\n\nBHARAT DEVRAJ SHEGAONKAR\nACIT CEN CIR 2, NASHIK\n\n5. He, therefore, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.03.2020. The assessee\nin response

KALPANA VIJAY KADAM,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.841/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kalpana Vijay Kadam, V The Income Tax Officer, Fi 13, Janki Heights, S.No.250, S. Ward-2(2), Pune. Baner D P Road, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Axzpk4350P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P. Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Manish Mehta – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 06.02.2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Affording A Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant. The Order Was Solely Based On The Observations Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) In The

147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), is bad in law and void ab initio for the following reasons: i. The alleged escaped income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. ii. The reopening was based on mere presumption and surmises, as it was initiated on borrowed satisfaction

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

147 are applicable to\nfacts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be case where income chargeable\nto tax has escaped assessment.\nPlease acknowledge receipt of this letter\n\nBHARAT DEVRAJ SHEGAONKAR\nACIT CEN CIR 2, NASHIK\n\n5. He, therefore, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.03.2020. The assessee\nin response

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

147 are applicable to\nfacts of this case and the assessment year under consideration is deemed to be case where income chargeable\nto tax has escaped assessment.\n\nPlease acknowledge receipt of this letter\n\nBHARAT DEVRAJ SHEGAONKAR\nACIT CEN CIR 2, NASHIK\n\n5. He, therefore, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 19.03.2020. The assessee\nin response

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

147 taxmann.com 288 (Allahabad) and argued that the purpose for having approval from Addl. CIT to ensure determination of correct tax and to protect interest of assessee by avoiding arbitrary, baseless addition. 17. Further, he drew our attention to the assessment orders for A.Ys. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, argued that the actual taxability u/s

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

147 of\nthe Act.\n5. No proper sanction in terms of section 151 of the Act was obtained.\nB. The assessment order is bad in law as the same was passed\nwithout valid DIN.”\n11. So far as the issue of validity of the assessment order\nwithout mentioning Document Identification Number (DIN) is\nconcerned, the assessee has made reference

LATE PARASMAL HANGAMILAL JAIN THROUGH WIFE AND LEGAL HEIR, MRS. CHHAYA PARASMAL JAIN,RAIGAD vs. ITD, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 09.03.2020 was issued electronically on the assessee’s e-mail registered with the e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department. However, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee to the said notice. Subsequently, notices