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

245C to Settlement Commission and brought only case\npursuant to notice under section 153A issued to it and did not expressly refer to\nnotice and penalty proceedings for violation of section 269ST pending against it\nSince penalty proceedings were also initiated in context of search, seizure and\nsurvey carried out qua assessee pursuant whereto notices under section

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

245C to Settlement Commission and brought only case\npursuant to notice under section 153A issued to it and did not expressly refer to\nnotice and penalty proceedings for violation of section 269ST pending against it\nSince penalty proceedings were also initiated in context of search, seizure and\nsurvey carried out qua assessee pursuant whereto notices under section

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

245C to Settlement Commission and brought only case\npursuant to notice under section 153A issued to it and did not expressly refer to\nnotice and penalty proceedings for violation of section 269ST pending against it\nSince penalty proceedings were also initiated in context of search, seizure and\nsurvey carried out qua assessee pursuant whereto notices under 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

245C made by trust is allowed to be proceeded with Settlement Commission (ITSC), then ITSC alone would have exclusive jurisdiction to perform functions of Income-tax authority as provided under section 245F. 19. Referring to the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Nagpal vs. DCIT (2007) 165 Taxman 71 (Del) (Mag,), he submitted

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

245C made by trust is allowed to be proceeded with Settlement Commission (ITSC), then ITSC alone would have exclusive jurisdiction to perform functions of Income-tax authority as provided under section 245F. 19. Referring to the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Nagpal vs. DCIT (2007) 165 Taxman 71 (Del) (Mag,), he submitted

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

245C made by trust is allowed to be proceeded with Settlement Commission (ITSC), then ITSC alone would have exclusive jurisdiction to perform functions of Income-tax authority as provided under section 245F. 19. Referring to the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Nagpal vs. DCIT (2007) 165 Taxman 71 (Del) (Mag,), he submitted

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

245C made by trust is allowed to be proceeded with Settlement Commission (ITSC), then ITSC alone would have exclusive jurisdiction to perform functions of Income-tax authority as provided under section 245F. 19. Referring to the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Nagpal vs. DCIT (2007) 165 Taxman 71 (Del) (Mag,), he submitted

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

245C made by trust is allowed to be proceeded with Settlement Commission (ITSC), then ITSC alone would have exclusive jurisdiction to perform functions of Income-tax authority as provided under section 245F. 19. Referring to the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vivek Nagpal vs. DCIT (2007) 165 Taxman 71 (Del) (Mag,), he submitted

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

245C to Settlement Commission and brought only case\npursuant to notice under section 153A issued to it and did not expressly refer to\nnotice and penalty proceedings for violation of section 269ST pending against it\nSince penalty proceedings were also initiated in context of search, seizure and\nsurvey carried out qua assessee pursuant whereto notices under section

UNIVERSAL REALTY,PUNE, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SWARGATE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.811/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

245C of the Income Tax Act for settlement of the assessment and thus the assessee wanted to reduce its tax liability. This fact is also missing in the instant appeal and, therefore, the same is not applicable in the case of the assessee. 10.3. So far as the remaining two decisions are concerned i.e., CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. SUBHASH JIVRAJ JAIN, 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

245C before the ITSC. In turn, the ITSC sought reports from PCIT as required u/sec, 245D (28) of the Act and also under Rule 9 of the Income Tax Settlement Commission Procedure Rule 1997. Since the AO mainly relied on the case of M/s. Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd., we shall examine mainly the case of M/s. Wellbuild Merchants