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

block period of six years prior to year of search as prescribed u/s 153A of the\nAct and therefore, the Assessing Officer could have issued notice u/s 153A of the\nAct only for the assessment year 2012-13 and onwards. Therefore, the only option\navailable with the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2012-13 was to reopen\nthe assessment

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

block period of six years prior to year of search as prescribed u/s 153A of the\nAct and therefore, the Assessing Officer could have issued notice u/s 153A of the\nAct only for the assessment year 2012-13 and onwards. Therefore, the only option\navailable with the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2012-13 was to reopen\nthe assessment

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

block assessment proceedings the assessee had submitted all the\nrelevant documents as asked by the Assessing Officer which included all the\ndetails with regard to the transactions carried out by the assessee in the alleged\nscrip. When all the relevant details with regard to the transactions done by the\nassessee in the alleged scrip in respect of sale and purchase

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

block assessment proceedings the assessee had submitted all the\nrelevant documents as asked by the Assessing Officer which included all the\ndetails with regard to the transactions carried out by the assessee in the alleged\nscrip. When all the relevant details with regard to the transactions done by the\nassessee in the alleged scrip in respect of sale and purchase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

block assessment proceedings the assessee had submitted all the\nrelevant documents as asked by the Assessing Officer which included all the\ndetails with regard to the transactions carried out by the assessee in the alleged\nscrip. When all the relevant details with regard to the transactions done by the\nassessee in the alleged scrip in respect of sale and purchase

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de-novo after taking

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de-novo after taking

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de-novo after taking

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de-novo after taking

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de-novo after taking

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de-novo after taking

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

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

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

Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. Since in the preceding paragraphs we have held that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11, therefore, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as application of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

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

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

Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. Since in the preceding paragraphs we have held that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11, therefore, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as application of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

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

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

Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. Since in the preceding paragraphs we have held that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11, therefore, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as application of income

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

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

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

Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. Since in the preceding paragraphs we have held that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11, therefore, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as application of income

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

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

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

Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. Since in the preceding paragraphs we have held that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11, therefore, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as application of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

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

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

Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. Since in the preceding paragraphs we have held that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s 11, therefore, the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee has to be treated as application of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

section which bars issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act after expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, clearly apply to the facts of the present case and therefore, notice was barred by limitation. 22. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that similar view has been taken by various Courts, according to which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

block of 15 years then the provisions of section 80IA(5) are applicable only from the initial assessment year. In other words, the losses in the years earlier to the initial assessment year having already been adjusted against profits of other business, cannot be notionally brought forward and set off against the profits of eligible business, where no such mandate