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

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

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

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2 of Schedule VI-A and limited upto (9-10-2\nTotal (12a + 12b) [limited upto (9-10)]\n11\n1969624243\n12a\n83050000\n125\n5072090\n120\n99122090\n2.\nThe deduction u/s.10AA is as per Sr. No. 11 of 'Sch-Part B - TI'.\nFurther, the deduction u/s.10AA as per 'Sch-10AA' is Rs.\n196,96,24,249 which is the same amount

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2 of Schedule VI-A and limited upto (9-10-2\nC\nTotal (12a + 12b) [limited upto (9-10)]\n11\n1969624243\n12a\n83050000\n125\n5072090\n120\n99122090\n\n2.\nThe deduction u/s.10AA is as per Sr. No. 11 of 'Sch-Part B - TI'.\nFurther, the deduction u/s.10AA as per 'Sch-10AA' is Rs.\n196,96,24,249 which

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

section 139(1) for the A.Y. 2010-11 was filed. The assessment was reopened and notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the appellant. Based on the NMS information available with the Department, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had deposited cash in ICICI bank on various dates aggregating to Rs.12,39,000/-. The assessee was called

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

2 ITA No.1312/PUN/2025 [A] Officer(AO) had asked the specific details regarding donation made to Amar Prerana Trust and Bhausaheb Firodia Vriddhashram Sanstha. The Assessee submitted copy of the receipts issued by Amar Prerana Trust and Bhausaheb Firodia Vriddhashram Sanstha which are at page no.123, 125 and 127 of the paper book. Ld.AR further submitted that nowhere in these receipts

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

BASHCO ENGINEERING PVT.LTD,,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (TDS),, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.894/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Bashco Engineering Pvt. Vs. Ito (Tds), Kolhapur. Ltd., Plot No. E-19, Midc Kupwad, Sangli- 416436. Pan : Aabcb1679A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.05.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Interest Liability U/S 206C(7) Of Rs. 28127/-. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Fact That When The Tcs Demand Is Nullified In Favour Of Assessee, Interest Liability On The Same Under 206C(7) Does Not Arises. 3. The Interest Demand Raised May Please Be Deleted.

section 206C(7) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the above order of the TDS Officer, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order taking cognizance of fact that the declaration in Form No.27C had been filed at the time of assessment, the assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default for TDS amount

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

section 57 of the Act. The case is pending before the CIT(Appeal). The AO report is attached as annexure 1 03. The appellant took a ground that the order passed is without jurisdiction and submitted that initial jurisdiction was vested that Circle -7, Pune and final order was passed by the ITO. Ward 2(3) Pune. As the relevant

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

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

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

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

2 M/s. Kasturi Rashi Developers During the course of the re-assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the report of DGIT (Investigation), Pune divulged the assessee to have received an alleged loan of Rs.25.00 lakh from M/s. Mohit International through accommodation entry. Vide letter dated 19-03-2015, an opportunity was given to the assessee to explain its stand