DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

131 ITR 597 (SC). Moreover, if a particular provision of statute has been incorporated in order to give effect to the provision of another 51 enactment, the provision should be interpreted in the sense in which they harmonise with the object of the statute and which effectuate the object of the Legislature, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

section 68 of the Act needs to be applied for such escapement of income, however, while concluding the re-assessment proceedings the additions have not been made u/s.68 of the Act but have been made u/s.115BBC of the Act and therefore there is ‘change of opinion’ and no show cause notice/reasons/revised reasons recorded for initiating the re-assessment proceedings

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

section 68 of the Act needs to be applied for such escapement of income, however, while concluding the re-assessment proceedings the additions have not been made u/s.68 of the Act but have been made u/s.115BBC of the Act and therefore there is ‘change of opinion’ and no show cause notice/reasons/revised reasons recorded for initiating the re-assessment proceedings

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

section 68 of the Act needs to be applied for such escapement of income, however, while concluding the re-assessment proceedings the additions have not been made u/s.68 of the Act but have been made u/s.115BBC of the Act and therefore there is ‘change of opinion’ and no show cause notice/reasons/revised reasons recorded for initiating the re-assessment proceedings

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in deleting the of Rs.17,80,059/- made on account of interest paid on alleged unsecured loans is 37 of the Income tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the 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

1) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom), wherein it was held that if the\nincome which formed the basis of the \"reason to believe\" is not\nultimately assessed, then the Assessing Officer cannot make\nadditions on other issues and the reassessment itself would be bad\nin law.\nHowever, the decision in Lark Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is not applicable

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

1) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom), wherein it was held that if the\nincome which formed the basis of the "reason to believe" is not\nultimately assessed, then the Assessing Officer cannot make\nadditions on other issues and the reassessment itself would be bad\nin law.\nHowever, the decision in Lark Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is not applicable

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

1) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom), wherein it was held that if the\nincome which formed the basis of the \"reason to believe\" is not\nultimately assessed, then the Assessing Officer cannot make\n13\nITA Nos.1121 to 1126/PUN/2024\nRajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha\nadditions on other issues and the reassessment itself would be bad\nin law.\nHowever, the decision

KALPESH RATILAL GARDHARIA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD- 2(3), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

68. 5. Additional Ground though raised before CIT(A) not considered Without prejudicial to above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee being entitled to claim set-off of the loss of Rs. Rs. 40,42,043 in the reassessment proceedings is entitled to invoke provisions of section

SOPAN BANDOBA CHAVAN,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), PUNE

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

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

1. Section 292C Further, it is submitted, as per section 292C, whatever documents found in the course of survey are deemed as TRUE as regards the contents therein and as regards the entries therein, etc. Now, in the present case, the impounded documents indeed clarify that, the CASH consideration is for sale of land and as such

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE vs. M/S SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (TRUST), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

131(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT-DR also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bannalal Jat Construction (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 106 taxmann.com 128 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once the statements are recorded on oath and duly signed, it has a great evidentiary value

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

1. Where false evidence had been Investment (P.) Ltd. [2013] 40 adduced by assessee to give colour taxmann.com 525 (Delhi) of genuineness to bogus entries through bank accounts and deposits which were mostly by cash, Assessing Officer was justified in making addition under section 68. 19 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. 2. PANs are issued without de-facto verification, these

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

1), Mumbai (2021) 131 taxmann.com 327 (Bombay) (Refer para 15 on page no. 3-12) 29. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sonal Ashish Shah vs. ITO vide ITA No.2541/PUN/2024 order dated 03.06.2025 for assessment year 2014-15, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench

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

1), Mumbai (2021) 131 taxmann.com 327 (Bombay) (Refer para 15 on page no. 3-12) 29. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sonal Ashish Shah vs. ITO vide ITA No.2541/PUN/2024 order dated 03.06.2025 for assessment year 2014-15, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench

V E L SOFTWARE LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

131(1) of the Act of Shri Yashwant Gujar was recorded, who deposed that he had never signed any affidavit confirming the transaction and also submitted that the signatures in the affidavit submitted in his name by the assessee company did not match with his signatures as appearing in the return of income filed

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

131 of the Act was also issued to the assessee on 06.12.2021 for appearance on 10.12.2021. On the basis of submissions received, a show cause notice was issued on 23.12.2021. The assessee in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer filed the requisite details from time to time. 5. The Assessing Officer noted that during the course

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

131 of the Act was also issued to the assessee on 06.12.2021 for appearance on 10.12.2021. On the basis of submissions received, a show cause notice was issued on 23.12.2021. The assessee in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer filed the requisite details from time to time. 5. The Assessing Officer noted that during the course

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

131 of the Act was also issued to the assessee on 06.12.2021 for appearance on 10.12.2021. On the basis of submissions received, a show cause notice was issued on 23.12.2021. The assessee in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer filed the requisite details from time to time. 5. The Assessing Officer noted that during the course

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

131 of the Act was also issued to the assessee on 06.12.2021 for appearance on 10.12.2021. On the basis of submissions received, a show cause notice was issued on 23.12.2021. The assessee in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer filed the requisite details from time to time. 5. The Assessing Officer noted that during the course

RAMANLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

131 of the Act was also issued to the assessee on 06.12.2021 for appearance on 10.12.2021. On the basis of submissions received, a show cause notice was issued on 23.12.2021. The assessee in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer filed the requisite details from time to time. 5. The Assessing Officer noted that during the course