CIT v. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.

Sandeep Natwarlal Mehta, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

…sallowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 7. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 8. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above (supra) is squarely applicable to the fa…

Vaibhav Maruti Dombale, Pune vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 299/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020 Vaibhav Maruti Dombale C9-1, Rajmudra, Dhankawadi, Pune. . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Asstt. Director Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri B. B. Mane Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 05/09/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Appeal Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short “Nfac”] Dt. 22/06/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Leapt Out Of An Order Of Intimation Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act, By Asstt. Dit, Cpc-Bengaluru [For Short “Cpc”] Dt. 14/05/2020, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2019-2020. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 6

….s. 43B for the impugned AY falls anterior, thus protected by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd.” reported in 319 ITR 306 and by the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in “CIT Vs Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd.”reported at 368 ITR 749. 9. In the light of above, the impugned NFAC order is set- aside and Ld. AO / CPC is directed to allow the deduction u/s 36(1)(va) as claimed in the return of income. 10. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed in aforestated terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Monday 05th…

Supreme Equipments P Ltd, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No. 224/Pun/2021 निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-2020 Supreme Equipments Private Limited B-19, Nice, Midc, Satpur, Nashik. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 05/09/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[For Short “Nfac”] Dt.12/03/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Dove Out Of An Order Of Intimation Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Asstt. Dit, Cpc-Bengaluru [For Short “Cpc”] Dt. 06/07/2020, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2019-2020. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 6

…r.w.s. 43B for the impugned AY falls anterior, thus protected by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd.” reported in 319 ITR 306 and the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in “CIT Vs Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd.”reported at 368 ITR 749. 9. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the impugned NFAC order is set-aside and Ld. AO / CPC is directed to allow the deduction u/s 36(1)(va) as claimed in the return of income filed. 10. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed in aforestated terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court…

M/S Shubham Biz Facility Management P Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Cir -10, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above (supra) is squarely applicable to the f…

Taiyo Nippon Sanso I P Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above (supra) is squarely applicable to the f…

Santosh Bhaisaheb Khaire, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above (supra) is squarely applicable to the f…

Rahul Paraji Arote, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above (supra) is squarely applicable to the f…

Rahul Paraji Arote, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above (supra) is squarely applicable to the f…

Pravin Masalewale, Pune vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC, CPC Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above (supra) is squarely applicable to the f…

Sunil Ambadas Kadam, Aurangabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

…allowance since the amount in question was admittedly deposited before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. The addition is therefore, directed to be deleted.” 10. Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 368 ITR 749 (Bom.) has taken identical view as taken by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (supra) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited above (supra) is squarely applicable to the f…

Ace Brain Systems and Software Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1 (1), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1594/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ace Brain Systems & Software P.Ltd., 1559, Sadashiv Peth, Opp. Shreyas Hotel, Pune – 411 030. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aadca7232L

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1594/PUN/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ace Brain Systems & Software P.Ltd., 1559, Sadashiv Peth, Opp. Shreyas Hotel, Pune – 411 030. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant PAN : AADCA7232L बनधम / V/s. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dy.CIT. Circle 1(1) Pune Assessee by : Shri Sharad Vaze Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 22.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 29.08.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S…