JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.171/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Acit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Ms. Rhea Amar Revenue By : Ms. Amrita Mishra सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Referring To The Grounds Before Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Grounds No.1, 14, 15 & 17 To 19 Are Required To Be Dismissed As They Are Of Either Consequential Or Premature Or General In Nature. Accordingly, They Are Dismissed. Therefore, The Rest Of Grounds No.2 To 13 & 16 Are Extracted Hereunder :-

section 80IA(10) r.w.s. 10AA(9) of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds no.2 to 9 raised by the assessee are allowed. Ground no.10 relates to the addition on account of reconciliation of 14. receipts with the details mentioned in Form No.26AS. 15. Brief facts of this issue include that, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed a discrepancy

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

TDS) v. Tushira Industries [2025] 168\ntaxmann.com 169 (Karnataka), wherein it was held that the income-\ntax exemption provided under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act is\nrestricted only to the compensation or awards made under the\nprovisions of the said Act itself. The Hon'ble Court observed that the\nwording of Section 96 \"made under this Act\" is explicit

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS statement filing 7. Deduction/Exemption u/s 10A/10AA 8. Income from house property 9. Reduction in profit due to ICDS 10. International transaction(s) 11. Loss from currency fluctuations 03. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26/02/2022 determining total income of Rs.455,25,53,250/- (Rs.722

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: *Income-tax Officer, Ward

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: *Income-tax Officer, Ward

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: *Income-tax Officer, Ward

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: *Income-tax Officer, Ward

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: *Income-tax Officer, Ward

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: *Income-tax Officer, Ward

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee’s profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB(10) of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: *Income-tax Officer, Ward

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

46,83,703/- made u/s 14A of the Act. (ii) As regards to the foreign travel expenditure, the ld. CIT(A) considering the fact that in the earlier assessment years i.e. A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 pursuant to the remand order passed by this Tribunal, the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2011-12 had allowed this expenditure after

M/S. ABL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 2501/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 वष"

10%, the remaining TDS amounting to Rs.2,75,928/- was disallowed by the AO u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Assessee also shown bad debts amounting to Rs.83,83,977/- in the profit and loss account. On verification of the profit and loss account, AO noted that the said debts claimed are on account of advance given

CHANDRAKANT VITHTHAL BHOPI,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 1 , PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

TDS has been deducted under the PAN of the assessee Shri Chandrakant Vithal Bhopi under section 184A which represents interest other than Interest on securities. The assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence and confirmation from the other members/co-owners about receipt of payment to the extent of their share of compensation/enhanced compensation or the receipt of Interest payment. During

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 and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income