DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. SECO TOOLS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom) for the proposition that before invoking the provisions of section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, where the original assessment was completed vide intimation under section 143

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, 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\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

section 68 of\nthe Act needs to be applied for such escapement of income,\nhowever, while concluding the re-assessment proceedings the\nadditions have not been made u/s.68 of the Act but have been\nmade u/s.115BBC of the Act and therefore there is 'change of\nopinion' and no show cause notice/reasons/revised reasons\nrecorded 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\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

section 68 of\nthe Act needs to be applied for such escapement of income,\nhowever, while concluding the re-assessment proceedings the\nadditions have not been made u/s.68 of the Act but have been\nmade u/s.115BBC of the Act and therefore there is 'change of\nopinion' and no show cause notice/reasons/revised reasons\nrecorded 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\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

section 68 of\nthe Act needs to be applied for such escapement of income,\nhowever, while concluding the re-assessment proceedings the\nadditions have not been made u/s.68 of the Act but have been\nmade u/s.115BBC of the Act and therefore there is 'change of\nopinion' and no show cause notice/reasons/revised reasons\nrecorded for initiating the re-assessment proceedings

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

section 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act vide his order dated 08.03.2021 at the assessed income of Rs.11,68

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

section 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act vide his order dated 08.03.2021 at the assessed income of Rs.11,68

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

143 which was also relied upon by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Amitabh Bansal (2019) 102 taxmann.com 229 (Delhi-Trib), where it was categorically held that section 292B cannot be invoked to cure the defect of wrong invocation of section 68

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act‟. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee‟s first and foremost substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action making section 68

AJINKYA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SEVAK SAH. PATSANSTHA, MARYADIT,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(1)(a)(ii) (an incorrect claim, if\nsuch incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the\nreturn).\n7.3 We note that in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-Operative\nBank Ltd. Kannur v. CIT 2016] 68

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

section 147/151 to the facts of the case- In this case a return of income\nwas filed for the year under consideration and regular assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153B was made on\n30.11.2016. Since 4 years from the end of the relevant year has not expired in this case, the only requirement to\ninitiate proceeding u/s147 is reason

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

section 147/151 to the facts of the case- In this case a return of income\nwas filed for the year under consideration and regular assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153B was made on\n30.11.2016. Since 4 years from the end of the relevant year has not expired in this case, the only requirement to\ninitiate proceeding u/s147 is reason

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

sections": [ "132", "153A", "143(3)", "153B", "147", "148", "68", "10(38)", "69C", "151" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings were

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

68 of the Income Tax Act. [4] On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts of case and in confirming the addition of Rs.8,40,00,000/-, u/s.68 of the IT Act, for the following reasons: (a) Merely on doubt, assumption, presumption

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

143(3) of the Act treated the additional income declared of Rs.2 crore as income u/s 68 to be read with section

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

143 or section 147, as the case may be, has been paid within the period specified in such notice of demand; and (b) no appeal against the order referred to in clause (a) has been filed. (2) An application referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made within one month from the end of the month