DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

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

70]. In paras 48 to 72, Hon'ble Supreme Court has\ndiscussed this issue and has held that the notice under the new provision of section\n148 have to be seen considering the proviso to section 149. He accordingly\nsubmitted that the notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law since no notice u/s 148 could\nhave been issued under

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

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 to be struck down. 4. On the facts

SATYAPREM RAJABHAU DHOLE,BEED vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

70 (SC), the Ld. AR submitted that as per the said decision the due date of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 as applicable to the instant case is 31.03.2022, however the notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 07.04.2022 and thus said notice issued by the Ld. JAO/AO u/s

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

70,80,000/- 7,18,81,584/- AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 5. It would be seen from the above that the assessee had declared the cost of investment at Rs.2,57,21,478/- and Rs.3,95,75,541/- whereas it was estimated by the DVO at Rs.5,03,08,440/- and Rs.7

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

70,80,000/- 7,18,81,584/- AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 5. It would be seen from the above that the assessee had declared the cost of investment at Rs.2,57,21,478/- and Rs.3,95,75,541/- whereas it was estimated by the DVO at Rs.5,03,08,440/- and Rs.7

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

PRITESH RATANSHI VED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), JALGAON

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

70 (SC). Accordingly, Ld. AR submitted before the bench that the issue involved in the 5 instant case is squarely covered in his favour and therefore Ld. AR requested before the bench to allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities

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

u/s 68, where the assessee company has failed. genuineness of its shareholders to show genuineness of its shareholders 6 Navodaya Castle (P.) Ltd. Vs 69 to 70 SLP dismissed against High Court CIT [2015] 56 taxmann.com ruling that certificate of incorporation, 18 (SC) PAN etc., are not sufficient for purpose of identification of subscriber company when there is material

MOTIWALA AUTO PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD1(1), AURANABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 rws 144\nby the AO and there are issues which need to be further examined and\ninvestigated by the AO. In view of the above facts and changes in the Act, as\nenumerated above, in my considered opinion the submissions filed by the\nappellant in the appellate proceedings, are germane to the correct appreciation of\nthe issues under deliberation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

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

70]. In paras 48 to 72, Hon'ble Supreme Court has\ndiscussed this issue and has held that the notice under the new provision of section\n148 have to be seen considering the proviso to section 149. He accordingly\nsubmitted that the notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law since no notice u/s 148 could\nhave been issued under

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, SATARA, INCOME TAX OFFICE SATARA vs. NANDKUMAR DATTATRAY KHOT, DAHIWADI MAN

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.1562/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, V Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Ward-3, Satara S Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan: Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, V The Income Tax Officer, Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, S Ward-3, Satara. Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan:Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Ar Shri Vidya Ratna Kishor – (Dr)(Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of

section 144B of the Income Tax Act Against the order u/s 147 rws 1448, dated 22/05/2023, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) The assessee took around 12 grounds before CIT(A) as mentioned in the page 3 of the Ld CIT(A)'s order. The assessee also took additional ground based on the decision of Telangana

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE vs. THE SHETKARI SHIKSHAN MANDAL, PUNE

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

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

u/s 147, the AO has power to re-assess and not no power to review. That is to say, he cannot revisit issues already considered in an earlier assessment. The appellant has not established that the AO had considered and decided the issues that were taken up in reassessment. Therefore, the assessment is valid. Ground 1 is dismissed. Loan repayment

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

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

70 (SC)[2024], therefore consequential order needs to be quashed 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148 dated 25/07/2022 without specifying the DIN & Notice No as envisaged in CBDT circular No. 19/2019 dated 14/08/2019

VINODKUMAR DHANULALJI SAWJI ,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 bad in law liable to be set aside 5. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 6. The appellant craves leave to furnish Additional Evidence which may be relevant to the above Grounds of Appeal in course of the appeal proceedings.” 4. The assessee also raised additional ground which reads

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

70,423/-. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s 143(3) on 12.01.2015 assessing the total income at Rs.12,99,210/-. Subsequently, it was observed that during the course of search operation the assessee has disclosed income of Rs.68,32,775/- u/s 69B of the IT Act for assessment year 2010-11 and while calculating short term capital gain on sale

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

70,152/- was made in assessment year 2014-15 and Rs.2,93,29,287/- in assessment year 2015-16). 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “5. DETERMINATION: 5.1 Grounds of the appeal are directed against addition of Rs.32,25,000/- made vide assessment order dated 21/03/2022 passed

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

70,152/- was made in assessment year 2014-15 and Rs.2,93,29,287/- in assessment year 2015-16). 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “5. DETERMINATION: 5.1 Grounds of the appeal are directed against addition of Rs.32,25,000/- made vide assessment order dated 21/03/2022 passed

RAMANLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147, section 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

147, section 140, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than