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

2 12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 v. S. 115BBC: Appellant submits that, there the above two sections orient and aim to tax, two completely different streams of income. Here are the key differences - a. Income of different assesses Vide S. 68, what is taxed is, an Assessee's own income, which such assessee portrays through some

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

2 12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 v. S. 115BBC: Appellant submits that, there the above two sections orient and aim to tax, two completely different streams of income. Here are the key differences - a. Income of different assesses Vide S. 68, what is taxed is, an Assessee's own income, which such assessee portrays through some

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

2 12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 v. S. 115BBC: Appellant submits that, there the above two sections orient and aim to tax, two completely different streams of income. Here are the key differences - a. Income of different assesses Vide S. 68, what is taxed is, an Assessee's own income, which such assessee portrays through some

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

section 151 have not been complied with in this case and respectfully following the judgments of the Honorable courts, I am of the considered view that notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law and the reopening u/s 147 is not sustainable and liable to be quashed. Hence, the notice u/s. 148 issued by the AO and the consequent

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

2\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC:\nAppellant submits that, there the above two sections orient and aim\nto tax, two completely different streams of income. Here are the key\ndifferences -\na. Income of different assesses Vide S. 68, what is taxed is,\nan Assessee's own income, which such assessee portrays\nthrough some

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

2\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC:\nAppellant submits that, there the above two sections orient and aim\nto tax, two completely different streams of income. Here are the key\ndifferences -\na. Income of different assesses Vide S. 68, what is taxed is,\nan Assessee's own income, which such assessee portrays\nthrough some

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

2\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC:\nAppellant submits that, there the above two sections orient and aim\nto tax, two completely different streams of income. Here are the key\ndifferences -\na. Income of different assesses Vide S. 68, what is taxed is,\nan Assessee's own income, which such assessee portrays\nthrough some

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

2(24) of the Act, it is clear that it is an ‗inclusive‘ definition and it covers all income come under charging provisions of the Act. If the argument of the learned counsel is to be accepted then no income can be taxed u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

2(24) of the Act, it is clear that it is an ‗inclusive‘ definition and it covers all income come under charging provisions of the Act. If the argument of the learned counsel is to be accepted then no income can be taxed u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

2(24) of the Act, it is clear that it is an ‗inclusive‘ definition and it covers all income come under charging provisions of the Act. If the argument of the learned counsel is to be accepted then no income can be taxed u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

2(24) of the Act, it is clear that it is an ‗inclusive‘ definition and it covers all income come under charging provisions of the Act. If the argument of the learned counsel is to be accepted then no income can be taxed u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

2(24) of the Act, it is clear that it is an ‗inclusive‘ definition and it covers all income come under charging provisions of the Act. If the argument of the learned counsel is to be accepted then no income can be taxed u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

2(24) of the Act, it is clear that it is an ‗inclusive‘ definition and it covers all income come under charging provisions of the Act. If the argument of the learned counsel is to be accepted then no income can be taxed u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

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

68 are not applicable, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the amendment brought in sub-section (2) of section 115BBE by the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 only: i) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

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

68 are not applicable, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the amendment brought in sub-section (2) of section 115BBE by the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 only: i) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom.), which was also in relation to assessment being completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter, issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court also considered the ratio CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 laid down by the Apex Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom.), which was also in relation to assessment being completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter, issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court also considered the ratio CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 laid down by the Apex Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh

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

2 could not have assumed jurisdiction and issued the\nimpugned notice under section 148 of the Act.\n34\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\n38 That apart, Respondents have tried to traverse beyond the disclosed reasons in\ntheir affidavit which is not permissible. The same cannot be taken into\nconsideration, while examining validity of notice under section 148

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 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 4. In the additional ground, the assessee contends that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by the A.O had no jurisdiction and that the transfer of case from ITO Ward 2(1) Kolhapur to ITO Ward 2(3) Kolhapur without order