NALINI TUKARAM NIKAM,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2747/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

TDS should also have been given. Therefore, I pray your honor to consider the same.” 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referred to the details filed in the paper book running into 110 pages. 7. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative apart from supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) further placed the following submissions : “May it Please

MR. YOGESH KULTHE,AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PANVEL, DIST. RAIGAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.940/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. He further submits that the evidences furnished before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings were not considered. In the 3 circumstances, the ld.AR prayed for one more opportunity to the assessee, as the assessee is in a position to substantiate the evidences relating to source for cash deposit and TDS deduction

REKHA KISHORE BARI,DHULE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER-NFAC, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1667/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rekha Kishore Bari, V The Assessing Officer- Datta Bari Bhavan, S Nfac. Opp.Rana Pratap Statute, Dhule – 424001. Pan: Abepb3597J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2020-21 Dated 19.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Dated 31/08/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

TDS Actual Area land Rs. 3(G)(2) ction Compensation amount well paid 3534 14,31,27 1,43,127 47803 16,22,200/- 1,62,220 14,59,980 sq.m 0 4.3 Thus, the actual amount of Rs.14,59,980/- was paid to the assessee on 30/08/2010. The assessee filed an appeal against the compensation. The Additional Divisional Commissioner

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

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

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

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

127 Taxman 150 (Chd.)(Mag.) c. Hariyana State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. v. DCIT 90 ITD 551(Chd.) d. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT 65 ITD 1(Cal.) e. Micromatic Grinding Technologies Ltd. Formerly known as (Parishudh Saadhan Yantra) v. Addl. CIT 172 Taxation 35 (Del-Trib) f. CIT v. Giridharilal 258 ITR 331 11. The Ld. Counsel

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2354/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kothari Agritech Private V The Dcit, Limited, S Circle-1, Solapur. 3Rd Floor, Sunplaza, 8516/11, Subhash Chowk, Murarji Peth, Solapur North, Jawaharlal Nehru Vastigrah S.O., Solapur – 413001. Maharashtra Pan: Aadck8017H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr.Piyush Bafna – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 19.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; dated 19.09.2024 for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.2354/PUN/2024 [A] “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in upholding the disallowance of commission expenses to the extent of Rs 45,24,707, which

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

TDS) reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78\n(Pune - Trib.).\nA copy of the said decisions is forwarded herewith as\n\"Appendix - B\" - refer Page Nos.37 to 54 of the compilation.\nTimely filing of return of income is not a pre-requisite\nfor allowability of deduction u/s.10AA of the Act:\n9. In the instant case, the eligibility to claim

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

TDS) reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78\n(Pune - Trib.).\n\nA copy of the said decisions is forwarded herewith as\n\"Appendix - B\" - refer Page Nos.37 to 54 of the compilation.\n\nTimely filing of return of income is not a pre-requisite\nfor allowability of deduction u/s.10AA of the Act:\n\n9. In the instant case, the eligibility

SHRI MULTANCHAND BORA TRUST,PUNE vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE- AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1312/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Multanchand Bora Trust, V The Assistant/Deputy 132B/2A, Ganeshkhind Road, S. Commissioner Of Income Pune – 411007. Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad. Pan: Aafts3329F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shrenik Gandhi Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune At Nashik Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 30.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Cit (Exemption) Seriously Erred On The Facts & Law, In Exercising The Revisionary Powers Under Section

Section 263 of the IT Act cannot be exercised merely because there is a “change of opinion”. The Learned CIT (Exemption) ought to have appreciated that, the case was not a case of lack of enquiry and that a detailed enquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer and all the relevant documents and details were available before the Assessing Officer

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

127 86,753.00 86,753.00 01/04/2019 United Breweries Limited Journal 120 - 3,12,889.40 (3,12,889.40) Round Off (6.60) Grand Total 21. Although the assessee had given detailed submission before the CIT(A) / NFAC, however, the CIT(A) / NFAC without considering the arguments of the assessee in a proper perspective has sustained the addition. Since the assessee has explained

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. BHUJBAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

TDS but the assessee failed to do so, thereby it was liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the unexplained cash deposits by giving telescoping benefits of on-money received without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to submit

BHUJBAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

TDS but the assessee failed to do so, thereby it was liable for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the unexplained cash deposits by giving telescoping benefits of on-money received without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to submit

M/S. KASTURI RASHI DEVELOPERS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

127. In that case also, no return of income was filed by the petitioner. Upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings, the Hon’ble High Court held that: “in any case, it is well settled that at this stage only prima facie view is to be taken to determine and decide whether there are reasons to believe that income has escaped