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

undisclosed income. 1.3 The said provision u/s 153C of the Act has been enacted for the purpose of simplifying the procedure in search cases. Thus, the import of such provisions cannot be to oust the recourse to the normal provisions, which in any event are available for assessment / reassessment of an income of an assessee. However

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

undisclosed\nincome is found on the basis of incriminating material, the AO would\nassume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income for the entire\nsix years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated\nassessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending\nassessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the\njurisdiction with respect

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM..OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. 5.1. Referring to the above clauses, he submitted that assessee does not fall under any of the above clauses. He submitted that once it is to be held that there is no under- reporting of income, the question of mis-reporting of income does not arise

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

undisclosed\nincome of the assessee which has escaped assessment. I am satisfied that\nthe case of the assessee is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act\nfor assessing the income for AY 2011-12. As regards time limit for issue of\nnotice u/s 148 of the IT Act, the case of the assessee falls

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

undisclosed\nincome of the assessee which has escaped assessment. I am satisfied that\nthe case of the assessee is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act\nfor assessing the income for AY 2011-12. As regards time limit for issue of\nnotice u/s 148 of the IT Act, the case of the assessee falls

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)

reassessment proceedings were also initiated and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act was completed on 10.03.2014 accepting the income assessed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 25.03.2013 without making any addition. The assessee went into first appeal against the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee preferred

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)

reassessment proceedings were also initiated and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act was completed on 10.03.2014 accepting the income assessed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 25.03.2013 without making any addition. The assessee went into first appeal against the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee preferred

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)

reassessment proceedings were also initiated and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act was completed on 10.03.2014 accepting the income assessed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 25.03.2013 without making any addition. The assessee went into first appeal against the assessment order dated 25.03.2013 but the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. The assessee preferred

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

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

undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (8)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or sub-section (7), where under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was attracted in the case of the assessee for such income declared in the Revised Return of Income and so also owing to the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 22/01/2014 accepting such income declared in the Revised Return of Income filed. The penalty therefore so levied

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

undisclosed income of the assessee, the provisions of section 153C of the Act need not be invoked and notice u/s 148 of the Act was rightly issued. 6. So far as the continuous denial of the assessee that no amount was received from Shri Sachin Nahar is concerned, the Assessing Officer held that the department has clear evidence to show

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

undisclosed sources and unexplained credits in the books of the assessee. 9.9 The assessee has taken loans amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- is remained unexplained. Therefore, the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- is treated as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the Total Income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

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

undisclosed income had been routed through. The AO had duly recorded the reasons for re-opening and thereafter notice dated 30.03.2014 was issued and served on the appellant company. During the course of appellate proceedings, the counsel of the appellant has argued that reasons so recorded U/s 147 were not provided to the assessee company in spite of fact that

SUBHASH RUNWAL,BIBWEWADI, PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(4) PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Subhash Runwal 204, Solitari-5, Nr. Kalyan Bhel, Bibwewadi Rd., Pune-411037. Pan: Adbpr7670R. . . . . . . . Appellant

undisclosed by the assessee. The notice issued u/s 148 of the Act precisely stated two items of escaped income i.e., (1) cash deposits as well as (2) interest income earned by the assessee from M/s Vinod Construction represented by Mr Vinod Jain. In this case since addition towards one of the items (i.e., escaped interest income) which along-with other

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

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

147.\nAccordingly, this Additional Ground is not maintainable and dismissed.\n7. Decision on Ground Nos.1 to 4:\n7.1 As discussed earlier, the appellant did not file any return of\nincome in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act. If we go\nthrough the grounds of appeal, it is seen that the appellant did not\ndispute

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

147. Accordingly, this Additional Ground is not maintainable and dismissed. 7. Decision on Ground Nos. 1 to 4: 7.1 As discussed earlier, the appellant did not file any return of income in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act. If we go through the grounds of appeal, it is seen that the appellant did not dispute

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

147. Accordingly, this Additional Ground is not maintainable and dismissed. 7. Decision on Ground Nos. 1 to 4: 7.1 As discussed earlier, the appellant did not file any return of income in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act. If we go through the grounds of appeal, it is seen that the appellant did not dispute

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

147. Accordingly, this Additional Ground is not maintainable and dismissed. 7. Decision on Ground Nos. 1 to 4: 7.1 As discussed earlier, the appellant did not file any return of income in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act. If we go through the grounds of appeal, it is seen that the appellant did not dispute