INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

loss of Rs.1,22,14,57,394/- and claimed the TDS credit of Rs.4,02,541/- thereby claiming a refund of Rs.4,02,541/-. The return was revised on 06.03.2020 claiming income tax refund of Rs.2541/- and carry forward

NIHILENT TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

forward unabsorbed loss and depreciation to the next year has to be done after reducing from the current year‘s profit either the loss or depreciation, whichever is lower.‖ 8. We find that the decision rendered by AAR in the case of Rastriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra) and the order of Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Ferrous Industries

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS credit and hence the carry forward of MAT credit of erstwhile company has to be allowed to the amalgamated company. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that section 72A, like some other provisions distinctly dealing with the effects of amalgamation, exclusively applies to accumulated losses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS credit and hence the carry forward of MAT credit of erstwhile company has to be allowed to the amalgamated company. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that section 72A, like some other provisions distinctly dealing with the effects of amalgamation, exclusively applies to accumulated losses

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI RAJENDRA BANSILAL RAISONI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

carried forward losses to the tune of Rs.41,41,769/-. The Assessing Officer in remand report vehemently opposed the admission of additional evidences filed by the assessee. 5. On the other hand Shri Vipin Gujrathi appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently defending the impugned order submitted that during assessment proceedings sufficient opportunity was not given to the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI RAJEDNRA BANSILAL RAISONI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

carried forward losses to the tune of Rs.41,41,769/-. The Assessing Officer in remand report vehemently opposed the admission of additional evidences filed by the assessee. 5. On the other hand Shri Vipin Gujrathi appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently defending the impugned order submitted that during assessment proceedings sufficient opportunity was not given to the assessee

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

forward\nbusiness losses (Ground no. 2) and non-granting of credit of advance tax\n(Ground no. 3) and credit of TDS (Ground no. 4) to the assessee, the Ld.\nAR requested the Bench that these issues may be set aside to the file of\nthe Ld. AO with the direction to allow the claim of the assessee

P P KHARPATIL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,URAN vs. CIRCLE - PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1294/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 P P Kharpatil Construction Pvt. V The Principal Ltd., S. Commissioner Of Income 656, At Post Chimer Taluka, Tax, Thane-1. Uran District, Raigad – 410206. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaccp4003B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs. Naina Chaurasia & Shri Sameer Gavli – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane-1 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 27.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3)R.W.S. 144Bof The Income Tax Act, Dated 22.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Forward TDS. Ld.AR invited our attention to the following notices and replies filed : Sr.No. Particulars Page No. 1 Notice u/s.142(1) dated 09.11.2021 56 to 57 2 Reply – u/s142(1) dated 16.11.2021 58 to 61 3 Notice u/s.142(2) dated 25.01.2022 62 to 63 4 Notice u/s.142(1) dated 25.02.2022 64 to 65 5 Reply letter dated 09.03.2022 with Annexures

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

carry forward of current year losses of\n₹30,12,118 has been made. Books of account are audited and\naudited financial statements u/s.44AB stands filed. Case\nselected for scrutiny under CASS for the reasons (i) large\nincrease in capital and (2) large investment in property. Valid\nstatutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act duly served\nupon

M/S KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2021-22

carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause (i); (iii) without set off of any loss or allowance for unabsorbed depreciation deemed so under section 72A, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS cannot substitute for the requirement of proving actual services rendered. Therefore, the appellant's explanation cannot be accepted as bona fide, and the disallowance represents income in respect of which inaccurate particulars were furnished. 5.5.3 The contention regarding tax neutrality is also without merit. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is linked to the act of furnishing inaccurate particulars

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS cannot substitute for the requirement of proving actual services rendered. Therefore, the appellant's explanation cannot be accepted as bona fide, and the disallowance represents income in respect of which inaccurate particulars were furnished. 5.5.3 The contention regarding tax neutrality is also without merit. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is linked to the act of furnishing inaccurate particulars

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1, PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS cannot substitute for the requirement of proving actual services rendered. Therefore, the appellant's explanation cannot be accepted as bona fide, and the disallowance represents income in respect of which inaccurate particulars were furnished. 5.5.3 The contention regarding tax neutrality is also without merit. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is linked to the act of furnishing inaccurate particulars

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS cannot substitute for the requirement of proving actual services rendered. Therefore, the appellant's explanation cannot be accepted as bona fide, and the disallowance represents income in respect of which inaccurate particulars were furnished. 5.5.3 The contention regarding tax neutrality is also without merit. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is linked to the act of furnishing inaccurate particulars

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

Loss Account. The closing balance of provision is carried forward to the next financial year. 10.1 We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in principle has accepted that the assessee has written off bad debts in its books. However, he has rejected the claim of assessee on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any evidence

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

Loss Account. The closing balance of provision is carried forward to the next financial year. 10.1 We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in principle has accepted that the assessee has written off bad debts in its books. However, he has rejected the claim of assessee on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any evidence

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

Loss Account. The closing balance of provision is carried forward to the next financial year. 10.1 We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in principle has accepted that the assessee has written off bad debts in its books. However, he has rejected the claim of assessee on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any evidence

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

Loss Account. The closing balance of provision is carried forward to the next financial year. 10.1 We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in principle has accepted that the assessee has written off bad debts in its books. However, he has rejected the claim of assessee on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any evidence

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

Loss Account. The closing balance of provision is carried forward to the next financial year. 10.1 We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in principle has accepted that the assessee has written off bad debts in its books. However, he has rejected the claim of assessee on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any evidence