Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (1.12 seconds)
Documents citing Prabhakar Damodar Gawande,, ... vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3,, ... on 9 May, 2019

Sureaksha Db Realty, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 8 September, 2022

016. He also relied on the decision of Pune Bench of ITAT that even if the addition is deleted in any appellate proceedings on the issue on which reopening is made, and then other additions which are not part of reasons for reopening do not survive. He referred to the decision in case of Prabhakar Damodar Gawade vs. ITO (200 TTD 1017).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shivalik Ventures Private ... vs Acit Cc 8(1), Mumbai, Mumbai on 28 August, 2025

8. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The limited issue for adjudication before us is when the addition emanating from the reasons for reopening i.e. notice under section 148A(b) & order under section 148A(d), is subsequently deleted, then whether any other addition made during reassessment would survive or not. It is relevant here to consider the following observations of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhakar Damodar Gawande (supra) -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shivalik Ventures Private ... vs Acit Cc 8(1), Mumbai, Mumbai on 28 August, 2025

8. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The limited issue for adjudication before us is when the addition emanating from the reasons for reopening i.e. notice under section 148A(b) & order under section 148A(d), is subsequently deleted, then whether any other addition made during reassessment would survive or not. It is relevant here to consider the following observations of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhakar Damodar Gawande (supra) -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shivalik Ventures Private ... vs Dcit Cc 8(1) , Mumbai, Mumbai on 28 August, 2025

8. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The limited issue for adjudication before us is when the addition emanating from the reasons for reopening i.e. notice under section 148A(b) & order under section 148A(d), is subsequently deleted, then whether any other addition made during reassessment would survive or not. It is relevant here to consider the following observations of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhakar Damodar Gawande (supra) -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P Rahim Abdulla,, Raigad vs Income Tax Officer,, on 28 January, 2020

8. After hearing both the sides and considering the written submission filed before us and also perusing the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prabhakar Damodar Gawande (supra), we find that the facts of the present appeal on the touchstone of the principle as discussed hereinabove. It turns out that the only addition made by the Assessing Officer as per the recorded reasons and the same stands deleted. In other words, on the concealed income, the Assessing Officer desired to tax on the reasons recorded, is no longer the concealed income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1