UJWAL FINE HOMES,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.491/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ujwal Fine Homes, V The Principal High Bliss, S No.23, Dhayri S Commissioner Of Income Narhe Road, Pune – 411041. Tax, Pune -3, Pune. Pan; Aabfu7293E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C.H.Naniwadekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3, Pune U/Sec.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 09.02.2024 For The A.Y.2018- 19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. In Issuing The Notice U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2018-19

1) of section 263 of the Income-tax Act provides that if the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner considers that any order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making an enquiry pass an order

RUPAL CHEMICALS,RATNAGIRI vs. ITO WARD 1, RATNAGIRI

In the result Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.2588/Pun/2025 नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Vs Ito, Ward 1, Rupal Chemicals, D/13, Midc, Lote Ratnagiri Parashuram, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri-415722 Maharashtra Pan-Aabfr7940R Appellant Respondent

TDS was also deducted by the assessee partnership firm during the year under consideration which needs to be allowed in the light of following case laws – 1. Hon. Mumbai ITAT decision in Kellogg India (33 taxmann 397) 2. Hon. Mumbai ITAT decision in Tata Communication (32 taxmann 197) 3. Hon. Delhi High Court decision in Exxon Mobil (8 taxmann

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE vs. SHRADDHA & PRASAD JOINT VENTURE,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2665/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 A.Y.2014-15 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that in absence of any contract or sub-contract work by the Joint

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3),, PUNE vs. SUBHASH & B.T. PATIL & SONS & N.V.KHAROTE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

1 to 5 of the appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for the year under consideration.” 8. We also find that Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA No. 1505/PUN/2017 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee placing reliance again on assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein

MAHAVIR ADINATH SALVE,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, SOLAPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.441/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Mahavir Adinath Salve, The Ito, Ward-1(1), Solapur. House No.930, Nagane Plot Vs Paranda Road, Barshi, . Solapur – 413411. Pan: Arxps 5761 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V L Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 15.11.2018 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Cir- 1/0804/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

TDS deduction mechanism Chapter XVII in the Act. We thus accept the assessee’s vehement arguments to this effect. 4. The factual position is no different regarding the latter aspect of the matter so far as the assessee’s payments covered under section 194I are concerned. A perusal of the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in para 5.1 makes

STAR QUENCHERS SPIRIT PVT. LTD,NASHIK vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara& Dr. Dipak P. Ripotestar Quenchers Spirit Pvt. Vs Jcit – Tds Range, Ltd., Flat No.1-1, Basant Nashik. Building, Spandan Nagar, Cidco, Aurangabad. Pan: Aancs 2939 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : /05/2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assesseeagainst The Orderof Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Nfac], Delhi,Dated 30.01.2023U/S. 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Act For A.Y.2011-12.The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Rs.1,09,304/- Penalty As Directed By Itat In Its Order Para 4,5,6. Appellant Prays To Delete Whole Of The Penalty Confirmed By Cit(A) Of Rs. 1,09,304/- 2. Without Prejudice To Ground No.1 Rs. 1,09,304/- Cit(A) Has Erred In Exceeding His Jurisdiction In Conforming Penalty Of Star Quenchers Spirit Pvt. Ltd.

197 19,700/- Which is less than the tax collectible i.e. Rs. 93,644/- 31010100160222 27EQ Q4 77 7,700/- Which is less than the tax collectible i.e. Rs. 1,21,137/- Total penalty Rs.1158+1158+1488+11100+38100 +28900+19700+7700 = 1,09,304/- The deductor, has therefore, rendered itself to be penalized u/s. 272A(2)(k) r.w.s

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 40A(3) of the Act and unsecured loans taken from Akash Foods and Feeds for which Assessing Officer was satisfied with the reply filed by the assessee and re- assessment proceedings were concluded after making addition u/s.68 of the Act at ₹83,56,232 and disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act at ₹1,36,378. Assessed income