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

153B(1) of the Act read with third proviso to said Section, in case of the search executed during the financial year commencing on or after 01.04.2019, the period of limitation for assessment or reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation

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

153B(1) of the Act read with third proviso to said Section, in case of the search executed during the financial year commencing on or after 01.04.2019, the period of limitation for assessment or reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation

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

153B(1) of the Act read with third proviso to said Section, in case of the search executed during the financial year commencing on or after 01.04.2019, the period of limitation for assessment or reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation

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

153B(1) of the Act read with third proviso to said Section, in case of the search executed during the financial year commencing on or after 01.04.2019, the period of limitation for assessment or reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation

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

153B(1) of the Act read with third proviso to said Section, in case of the search executed during the financial year commencing on or after 01.04.2019, the period of limitation for assessment or reassessment under Section 153C of the Act has been specified as twelve months from the end of financial year during which the last authorisation

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

b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the\nAct. It is beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Judicature at\nAllahabad in the case of PCIT v. Sapna Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine All 1294]\nwhich captures with precision the scope of the concerned provision and more\nsignificantly, the import of the phrase

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the\nAct. It is beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Judicature at\nAllahabad in the case of PCIT v. Sapna Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine All 1294]\nwhich captures with precision the scope of the concerned provision and more\nsignificantly, the import of the phrase

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

b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the\nAct. It is beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Judicature at\nAllahabad in the case of PCIT v. Sapna Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine All 1294]\nwhich captures with precision the scope of the concerned provision and more\nsignificantly, the import of the phrase

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

b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the\nAct. It is beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Judicature at\nAllahabad in the case of PCIT v. Sapna Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine All 1294]\nwhich captures with precision the scope of the concerned provision and more\nsignificantly, the import of the phrase

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

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

b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the\nAct. It is beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Judicature at\nAllahabad in the case of PCIT v. Sapna Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine All 1294]\nwhich captures with precision the scope of the concerned provision and more\nsignificantly, the import of the phrase

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A of the\nAct. It is beneficial to refer to the decision of the High Court of Judicature at\nAllahabad in the case of PCIT v. Sapna Gupta [2022 SCC OnLine All 1294]\nwhich captures with precision the scope of the concerned provision and more\nsignificantly, the import of the phrase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. ABHAYRAJ FATTEHRAJ CHORDIYA, C/O LAXMI OIL MIL

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 : 2014-15

68 taxmann.com 77 (SC) delivered on 21.10.2024 vide Civil SLP Diary in 23406 of 2024. 38. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sinhgad Technical Education has held that the Assessing Officer is required to make year- wise analysis of the incriminating seized material. However, in the instant case no such year-wise analysis

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

B”, PUNE\nBEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nMS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA Nos.1555, 1560, 1561 & 1565/PUN/2024\n Assessment years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2018-19\n\n| ACIT, Circle -1, Jalgaon | Vs. | Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna |\n| (Appellant) | | 91, Nayantara, Subhash Chowk, |\n| | | Jalgaon – 425001 |\n| | | PAN : ALGPB5972R |\n| | | (Respondent)\nCO Nos.5, 3, 4 & 2/PUN/2025

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

B”, PUNE\nBEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nMS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA Nos.1555, 1560, 1561 & 1565/PUN/2024\n Assessment years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2018-19\n\n| ACIT, Circle -1, Jalgaon | Vs. | Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna\n| | 91, Nayantara, Subhash Chowk,\n| | Jalgaon – 425001\n| | PAN : ALGPB5972R\n(Appellant) | | (Respondent)\n\nCO Nos.5

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

B”, PUNE\nBEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nMS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA Nos.1555, 1560, 1561 & 1565/PUN/2024\n Assessment years : 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2018-19\n\n| ACIT, Circle -1, Jalgaon | Vs. | Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna\n| (Appellant) | | 91, Nayantara, Subhash Chowk,\n| | | Jalgaon – 425001\n| | | PAN : ALGPB5972R\n| | | (Respondent)\n\nCO Nos.5

WIKA INSTRUMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2767/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Wika Instruments India V The Dcit, Private Limited, S. Circle-12, Pune. Hi-Cliff Industrial Estate, Kesnand, Pune – 412207. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacw2665A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act, Dated 25.10.2024 To Give Effect To The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Passed U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 26.09.2024 Emanating From Draft Assessment Order Under Section 144C(1) Of

b) no objections are received within the period specified in sub-section (2). ITA No.2767/PUN/2024 [A] 4…………………. …………… (13) Upon receipt of the directions issued under sub-section (5), the Assessing Officer shall, in conformity with the directions, complete, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 153 or section 153B, the assessment without providing any further

VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

68 of the Act; and (ii) taxation of said CH Collections of Rs.99 lakhs in all three assessment years without giving credit expenses in any form including preponing to the expenditure actually incurred on the Club House in assessment year 2014-15. CIT(A) : Aggrieved with the above decisions of the Assessing Officer, the 12. assessee filed appeals before

M/S. VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

68 of the Act; and (ii) taxation of said CH Collections of Rs.99 lakhs in all three assessment years without giving credit expenses in any form including preponing to the expenditure actually incurred on the Club House in assessment year 2014-15. CIT(A) : Aggrieved with the above decisions of the Assessing Officer, the 12. assessee filed appeals before

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -(1),, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1258/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Leelavati Vijaykumar Kotecha, The Dy.Commissioner Of 4, Teachers Colonyh, Ring Vs Income Tax, Cc(1), Road, Jalgaon- 425001. Nashik. Pan: Alvpk 4435 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan & Jaygobind Palai –Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walilmbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune For The A.Y. 2012-13 Dated 27.04.2018, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “5. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Without Having Jurisdiction Because, No Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted To The Appellant U/S 127 & Also Disregarding The Objections Raised U/S 292Bb In This Regard. Without Prejudice To The Above & Alternatively. 6. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) On The Basis Of Notice U/S

1), Nashik [A] 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) wherein no specific mentioned of either filing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income was mentioned and thereby passing the order of penalty which is to be quashed as per recent judgement of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case