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

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

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

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

TDS on payments to the specified persons referred to section 13(3) of the Act, etc. Thus, a perusal of various details furnished by the assessee clearly shows that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has passed the assessment order after a detailed scrutiny with multiple pointed queries on the very same payments to the specified persons. Further

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded." 8. On a bare perusal of the sub section-1 would reveal that powers of revision granted

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

124 (Calcutta).  Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs.PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)  Sesa Sterlite Limited 92021)123 taxmann.com 217 B(ombay)  Swarup Vegetable Products Vs. CIT [1991] 54 Taxman 175 (Allahabad)  CIT Vs. Maithan International 375 IR 123 (Calcuta)  Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Delhi)  CIT Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

2), Mumbai (ITA\n1903/Mum/2015) has held that\n\"Therefore prior to 1.7.2016 there was no legal sanctity for Form No.3CL\nin the context of allowing deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. This view has\nbeen held by the various judicial pronouncements as relied.....…….” There are\nsimilar views has been held by the various judicial pronouncement.\nIt is noted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

2), Mumbai (ITA\n1903/Mum/2015) has held that\n\"Therefore prior to 1.7.2016 there was no legal sanctity for Form No.3CL\nin the context of allowing deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. This view has\nbeen held by the various judicial pronouncements as relied .....…….” There are\nsimilar views has been held by the various judicial pronouncement.\nIt is noted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

2), Mumbai (ITA\n1903/Mum/2015) has held that\n\"Therefore prior to 1.7.2016 there was no legal sanctity for Form No.3CL\nin the context of allowing deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. This view has\nbeen held by the various judicial pronouncements as relied.....…….” There are\nsimilar views has been held by the various judicial pronouncement.\nIt is noted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

2), Mumbai (ITA\n1903/Mum/2015) has held that\n\"Therefore prior to 1.7.2016 there was no legal sanctity for Form No.3CL\nin the context of allowing deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. This view has\nbeen held by the various judicial pronouncements as relied.....…….” There are\nsimilar views has been held by the various judicial pronouncement.\nIt is noted that

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

2 ITA 395 of 2019 Sachin Ramdas Mohite A.Y. 2013-14 not enquire into all relevant issues involving the assessee’s foregoing deposits and business turnover whilst framing the assessment and therefore, the same attract section 263 jurisdiction. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments and find no reason

PUSPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE, PUNE

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

TDS & Service Tax of Rs.12,715/-. (iv) Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of Rs.21,16,195/-. (v) Disallowance of depreciation on cars of Rs.2,79,725/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances/additions, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the disallowance on account of belated deposit of employees contribution

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. IAC INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 92CA(1) of the Act in order to determine the Arm‟s Length Price (“ALP”) in respect of such international transactions. 2.2 The assessee undertook the following international transactions with its AEs during AY 2013-14 and benchmarked each transaction by selecting the Most Appropriate Method (“MAM”) mentioned in the table below: Sr. Nature of International Amount

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

124 b. National Plastic and Allied Industries vs DCIT 67 TTJ 824 c. Mool Raj Singh and others vs ITO 63 TTJ 211 d. CIT vs Smt. Nirmal Anand 245 ITR 836 e. Jay Commercial Ltd vs CIT 66 TTJ 731 f. Hycron India vs ACIT 82 TTJ 450 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court

RAIGAON SUGAR AND POWER LIMITED,KARAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, CIR-SATARA, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

124 PAN : AAECC 8784 C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM These appeals at the instance of the same assessee are directed against the different orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 15/10/2025 & 27/10/2025 passed under

RAIGAON SUGAR AND POWER LIMITED,KARAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, CIR-SATARA, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

124 PAN : AAECC 8784 C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM These appeals at the instance of the same assessee are directed against the different orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 15/10/2025 & 27/10/2025 passed under