DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted

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

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

loss. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s. 154 of the Act for rectifying the assessment as the profit from the sale of said bogus shares had been under assessed. We note that the AO attempted for reassessment in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. reported

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

loss. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s. 154 of the Act for rectifying the assessment as the profit from the sale of said bogus shares had been under assessed. We note that the AO attempted for reassessment in view of the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. reported

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

reassessment u/s 147, the 'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended / enhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the celebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar- 268 ITR 332 (Bom)... (copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.) 14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of income As per facts

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

reassessment u/s 147, the 'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended / enhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the celebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar- 268 ITR 332 (Bom)... (copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.) 14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of income As per facts

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

reassessment u/s 147, the 'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended / enhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the celebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar- 268 ITR 332 (Bom)... (copy enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.) 14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of income As per facts

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Loss Account\nf) Balance Sheet along with Audit Report u/s 44AB\ng) Personal Accounts (Manoj Chhajed Capital Account, Balance Sheet,\nIncome and Expenditure Statement)\n26\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nb) Reply to notice dated 31.01.2014 u/s 143(2) and 142(1) – Documents enclosed\nare:\ni. Ledgers in our books\na) Ledger of Abhilasha Exports Pvt. Ltd.\nb) Ledger of Divyadrishti

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Loss Account\nf) Balance Sheet along with Audit Report u/s 44AB\ng) Personal Accounts (Manoj Chhajed Capital Account, Balance Sheet,\nIncome and Expenditure Statement)\n26\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nb) Reply to notice dated 31.01.2014 u/s 143(2) and 142(1) – Documents enclosed\nare:\ni. Ledgers in our books\na) Ledger of Abhilasha Exports Pvt. Ltd.\nb) Ledger of Divyadrishti

DINDAYAL MAGASVARGIYA SAHAKARI SOOT GIRNI LTD,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SANGLI, CIRCLE SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.205/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dindayal Magasvargiya Vs. Acit, Circle Sangli, Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., Sangli. At Waghwadi, Post Kameri, Tal. Walwa, Sangli- 415403. Pan : Aaaad0254E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 For Ay 2014-15, Being The Year Beyond 4 Years & For Which Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Has Already Been Passed, Thereby

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for AY 2014-15 by recording the reason to believe which is based on audit objection. We submit that the reason based on such borrowed satisfaction cannot be the basis of reopening the concluded assessment. Therefore, entire proceedings are void ab initio. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds on the facts and in the circumstances

DINDAYAL MAGASVARGIYA SAHAKARI SOOT GIRNI LTD ,WAGHWADI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SANGLI., NISHANT COLONY

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2325/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dindayal Magasvargiya Vs. Acit, Circle Sangli, Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., Sangli. At Waghwadi, Post Kameri, Tal. Walwa, Sangli- 415403. Pan : Aaaad0254E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri R. Y. Balawade Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 For Ay 2013-14, Being The Year Beyond 4 Years & For Which Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Has Already Been Passed, Thereby

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for AY 2013-14 by recording the reason to believe which is based on audit objection. We submit that the reason based on such borrowed satisfaction cannot be the basis of reopening the concluded assessment. Therefore, entire proceedings are void ab initio. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds on the facts and in the circumstances

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

reassessment u/s 147, the\n'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended /\nenhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the\ncelebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar-\n268 ITR 332 (Вот)... (сору enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.)\n14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of\nincome\nAs per facts

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

reassessment u/s 147, the\n'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended /\nenhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the\ncelebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar-\n268 ITR 332 (Вот)... (сору enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.)\n14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of\nincome\nAs per facts

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

reassessment u/s 147, the\n'reason' has to be specific and the same can't be extended /\nenhanced /supplemented, etc. This ratio emerges from the\ncelebrated decision in the case of Hindustan Lever v. R B Wadkar-\n268 ITR 332 (Bom)... (сору enclosed and marked as Annexure-6.)\n14. Conention-3-Erroneous/Improper charge of escapement of\nincome\nAs per facts

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

reassessment proceedings when admittedly conditions specified u/s 147 of the ITA, 1961 for valid initiation were not satisfied in as much as all the facts were truly and fully disclosed in the original assessment proceedings and order was passed after due verification. As such, the addition was only the result of a change in opinion and the action

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

set aside and all action in furtherance thereto is prohibited; ii. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs 6.4 In the instant case, the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court squarely applies. The appellant had already declared & claimed the exemption u/s 10(38) in his original return of income. The Assessing Officer had also duly verified

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

set aside and all action in furtherance thereto is prohibited; ii. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs 6.4 In the instant case, the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court squarely applies. The appellant had already declared & claimed the exemption u/s 10(38) in his original return of income. The Assessing Officer had also duly verified

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

set aside and all action in furtherance thereto is prohibited; ii. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs 6.4 In the instant case, the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court squarely applies. The appellant had already declared & claimed the exemption u/s 10(38) in his original return of income. The Assessing Officer had also duly verified