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

68 of the IT Act as the assessee has not been able to explain satisfactorily the nature and source of the sums credited to the books of account. e) The total claimed donations received by the assessee trust for different financial years is as under :- F Y A Y Donations claimed

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

68 of the IT Act as the assessee has not been able to explain satisfactorily the nature and source of the sums credited to the books of account. e) The total claimed donations received by the assessee trust for different financial years is as under :- F Y A Y Donations claimed

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

68 of the IT Act as the assessee has not been able to explain satisfactorily the nature and source of the sums credited to the books of account. e) The total claimed donations received by the assessee trust for different financial years is as under :- F Y A Y Donations claimed

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

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 of the Act. He submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2017 by relying on the reason recorded provided by the Ld. AO vide letter dated 29.05.2017. The Ld. AO also provided a copy of the approval of the PCIT- 1, Pune to the assessee which contained the letter No. PN/Pr.CIT- 1/u/s148/VPZ

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

AMIT SURESH AGRAWAL,SATARA vs. ITO WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

1)(b) of the Act, and is therefore liable to be quashed. 2. The sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act required for issuing the notice under Section 148 has been obtained from an Authority lacking jurisdiction to grant such approval, thereby rendering the entire reassessment proceedings null and void. 3. The Assessing Officer has erroneously

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

151 of the Act is a jurisdictional prerequisite and the assessee is fully entitled to have the copy of the same. He argued that the approval issued u/s. 153D of the Act by the Addl. CIT is a jurisdictional prerequisite provided under law and is not an internal communication. He vehemently contended no DIN is affixed to the approval granted

MR. VIJAY BAJIRAO BALWADKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

68,500/-, assessee has also raised the following additional ground challenging the validity of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act being invalid and void ab-initio since 3 Vijay Bajirao Balwadkar the same has been initiated without proper approval/sanction as required u/s.151 of the Act. “On the facts and circumstance prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme

ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other than the person referred

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

151 and section 153, where the Assessing\nOfficer is satisfied that-\n(a)\nany money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or\nthing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\na person other than the person referred

ATUL BHANUDAS SHINDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(5), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.970/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Atul Bhanudas Shinde, V The Income Tax Officer, Shetphal Haveli, Dhenu Nagar, S Ward-14(5), Pune. Bawada S.O, Shetphal Haveli, Pune – 413103. Maharashtra. Pan: Ectps5299N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Form No.36 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 14.02.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 20.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Notice issued u/s 148 is without DIN and hence same is invalid. Accordingly, Assessment Proceeding based on such notice is also bad in law. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, addition u/s 68 cannot be made. 3. Under the facts and circumstances

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

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section

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

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section

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

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section

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

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section

RAMLAL 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

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section