INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

8 CO No.43/PUN/2025 9 CO No.43/PUN/2025 10 CO No.43/PUN/2025 9. So far as the validity of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not adjudicate the same since he has deleted the addition on merit by observing as under: 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue

ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

8 to 13 of the\npaper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the\nsame and submitted that the first entry of Rs.15 lakh is shown in the name of\nA.Lodha. Similarly, second and third entries of Rs.15 lakh and Rs.10 lakh each are\nshown in the name of A.Lodha which

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

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. The first proviso to section 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief

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

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 SHANTINATH BHAGWAN JAIN SHWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK SANGH,PUNE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 ITA No.203/PUN/2021, A.Y. 2010-11 2. It emerges at the outset that the CIT(E)’s impugned order exercising section 263 revision jurisdiction terms the corresponding assessment /reassessment herein dated 29-09-2017 as an erroneous one causing prejudice

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that relevant facts in assessee’s former twin appeals hardly require us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as its first and foremost substantive grievance challenging correctness

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that relevant facts in assessee’s former twin appeals hardly require us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as its first and foremost substantive grievance challenging correctness

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that relevant facts in assessee’s former twin appeals hardly require us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix so far as its first and foremost substantive grievance challenging correctness

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

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, 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

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

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

section 147 of the Act." From Para 10, 11 and 12 of the assessment order, it is clear that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated on the basis of the statement of Sh. Sachin M Nahar and based on material in seized documents. There is no Para 13 in the assessment order which has been referred in the Assessment Order

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

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently. He submits that if an assessment was made u/s. 143(3) of the Act and no action can be taken u/s. 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from

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

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently. He submits that if an assessment was made u/s. 143(3) of the Act and no action can be taken u/s. 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from

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

147 is after expiry of the four years from the end of A.Y.2012-13 and therefore the reassessment proceeding are initiated beyond the time limit and are thus time barred and bad in law and not sustainable. 4. Learned CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in confirming the addition made by A.O. without considering the fact that reassessment

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

147 is after expiry of the four years from the end of A.Y.2012-13 and therefore the reassessment proceeding are initiated beyond the time limit and are thus time barred and bad in law and not sustainable. 4. Learned CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in confirming the addition made by A.O. without considering the fact that reassessment