M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1176/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

250 (SC), wherein Special Leave Petition was dismissed against the High Court ruling that section 14A of the Act could not be invoked where no exempt income was earned by assessee in the relevant assessment year. 9. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 10. We have

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1176/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

250 (SC), wherein Special Leave Petition was dismissed against the High Court ruling that section 14A of the Act could not be invoked where no exempt income was earned by assessee in the relevant assessment year. 9. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 10. We have

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA B. KADAM, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,97,23,580/- as cumulative difference of cash transaction with credit balance by invoking provision of section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,97,23,580/- as cumulative difference of cash transaction with credit balance by invoking provision of section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,97,23,580/- as cumulative difference of cash transaction with credit balance by invoking provision of section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,97,23,580/- as cumulative difference of cash transaction with credit balance by invoking provision of section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,97,23,580/- as cumulative difference of cash transaction with credit balance by invoking provision of section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,97,23,580/- as cumulative difference of cash transaction with credit balance by invoking provision of section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,97,23,580/- as cumulative difference of cash transaction with credit balance by invoking provision of section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,97,23,580/- as cumulative difference of cash transaction with credit balance by invoking provision of section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE vs. DIPTI NARENDRA LULLA, PUNE

sections": [ "143(2)", "142(1)", "133(6)", "68", "115BBE", "271AAC", "69", "270A", "131", "46A", "250(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

250 which he failed to do. Thus, it was a fit case where the AAC should have exercised the powers conferred upon him and taken on record the zerox copies of the cheque, the certificate from the bank and the copy of the account of the assessee with the said bank and considered the same for deciding the genuineness

ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. DHIRAJ BHAUSAHEB NIKAM, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

250(4) quoted above is generally by calling what is known as "remand report". The purpose of this enabling clause is essentially to ensure that the matter of assessment reaches finality with all the requisite facts found. The assessment proceedings re- opened on the basis of preliminary satisfaction that some part of the income has escaped assessment, particularly when some

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income