DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

91 (Bom.), which was also in relation to assessment being completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter, issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court also considered the ratio CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 laid down by the Apex Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

91 (Bom.), which was also in relation to assessment being completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter, issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court also considered the ratio CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 laid down by the Apex Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers

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

91,850/- on 13.09.2010. Against the income from capital gains computed at Rs.2,41,17,168/-, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act at Rs.38,40,098/-, on account of investment in Mega Polis property. The Assessing Officer while completing assessment, noted that the assessee had not declared the sale consideration of Rs.2.55 crores

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

91,850/- on 13.09.2010. Against the income from capital gains computed at Rs.2,41,17,168/-, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act at Rs.38,40,098/-, on account of investment in Mega Polis property. The Assessing Officer while completing assessment, noted that the assessee had not declared the sale consideration of Rs.2.55 crores

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

91,850/- on 13.09.2010. Against the income from capital gains computed at Rs.2,41,17,168/-, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act at Rs.38,40,098/-, on account of investment in Mega Polis property. The Assessing Officer while completing assessment, noted that the assessee had not declared the sale consideration of Rs.2.55 crores

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

91,850/- on 13.09.2010. Against the income from capital gains computed at Rs.2,41,17,168/-, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act at Rs.38,40,098/-, on account of investment in Mega Polis property. The Assessing Officer while completing assessment, noted that the assessee had not declared the sale consideration of Rs.2.55 crores

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

91,850/- on 13.09.2010. Against the income from capital gains computed at Rs.2,41,17,168/-, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act at Rs.38,40,098/-, on account of investment in Mega Polis property. The Assessing Officer while completing assessment, noted that the assessee had not declared the sale consideration of Rs.2.55 crores

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

91,850/- on 13.09.2010. Against the income from capital gains computed at Rs.2,41,17,168/-, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act at Rs.38,40,098/-, on account of investment in Mega Polis property. The Assessing Officer while completing assessment, noted that the assessee had not declared the sale consideration of Rs.2.55 crores

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

147 i.e. reassessment, to the extent that these proceedings are for the benefit of revenue and not that of the assessee. Therefore, assessee could not be permitted to convert such reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision in disguise and seek relief in respect of depreciation earlier not claimed in original return of income. 17. Thus, the law is clear

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

147 i.e. reassessment, to the extent that these proceedings are for the benefit of revenue and not that of the assessee. Therefore, assessee could not be permitted to convert such reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision in disguise and seek relief in respect of depreciation earlier not claimed in original return of income. 17. Thus, the law is clear

RAJDEEP BUILDCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

147 i.e. reassessment, to the extent that these proceedings are for the benefit of revenue and not that of the assessee. Therefore, assessee could not be permitted to convert such reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision in disguise and seek relief in respect of depreciation earlier not claimed in original return of income. 17. Thus, the law is clear

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

reassessment notice as the AO has not established that new facts material or information came the knowledge of the AO which was not on record and available at the time of assessment. It is clear that on account of the audit objection that a remedial action of reopening the assessment by an action u/s 148 of the Act was taken

NAVJYOTI FARMING PRIVATE LIMITED,BELAPUR vs. ITO, WARD -3 , PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

section 147 of the Act and in absence of any recording by the Assessing Officer of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for completion of assessment, such reopening of assessment is not valid. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: (i) SABH Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT

VILSON ROOFING PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 956/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vilson Roofing Products Pvt. Ltd., 1St Lane, Opp. Prataprao Jagdale Hall, Rajarampuri, Kolhapur, Pin – 416 008 . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan: Aaccv0661M

section 147(a) is that the Assessing Officer had when he assumed jurisdiction some prims facie grounds for thinking that there has been some non-disclosure of material facts. Whether these grounds were adequate or not for arriving at such conclusion would not be open for the Courts‟ Investigation. Clearly it-is the duty of the assessee who wants

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

91, Nayantara, Subhash Chowk Jalgaon Jalgaon 425001, Maharashtra India PAN: ALGPB5972R Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dated: 02/09/2020 DIN & Letter No: ITBA/AST/F/17/2020-21/1027880815(1) Sir/Madam/ M/s, Subject: Providing reason recorded for issued of notice u/s.148 for A.Y.2015-16-Reg. Ref: Your Letter dated 30.07.2020 received in this office on 10.08.2020 03. Accordingly the reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 189 of\nthe Act and upholding the impugned assessment order in case of a dissolved\nfirm for the relevant AY 2017-18 i.e. post dissolution when the firm is not even\nin existence.\n6.\nThe Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the Ld.\nAO and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.\n7.\nWe have heard

RAGBIRSINGH MALIKSINGH RAJPAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law : 1. The AO erred in reopening the case and passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 189 of\nthe Act and upholding the impugned assessment order in case of a dissolved\nfirm for the relevant AY 2017-18 i.e. post dissolution when the firm is not even\nin existence.\n6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the Ld.\nAO and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.\n7. We have heard

DHOOT COMPACK PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 148. Hence the reassessment becomes bad in law and accordingly the addition made of Rs. 726485/- may please be deleted. Without prejudice to the above ground following grounds may please be considered. 2. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law the Resp. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition made