B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B. C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B. C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B. C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

TDS credit of Rs.4,02,541/- thereby claiming a refund of Rs.4,02,541/-. The return was revised on 06.03.2020 claiming income tax refund of Rs.2541/- and carry forward loss of Rs.3,95,51,713/-. However, the CPC did not allow the claim of carry forward 2 business loss of Rs.3,95,51,713/- as claimed in the return

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.

Section 194C were not applicable for the purpose of TDS, without appreciating the fact that the work contract order was issued in the name of the assessee (JV) and re-allocation of the contract between the members of the JV would amount to sub-contracting. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. LALIT RAGHUNATHRAO SHINDE , PUNE

239\nRs.10,64,250\nRs.1,95,07,500\nRs.10,46,250\nRs.3,62,400\nRs.2,35,69,639\nAdd: Service Tax\n(collected & considered separately) Rs.29,37,563\nGROSS TOTAL\nRs.2,65,07,202\n(Cable Receipts of Rs.577455 credited to P & L A/c are not taken into account for\nthe purpose of above calculation as these receipts are found

P P KHARPATIL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,URAN vs. CIRCLE - PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1294/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 P P Kharpatil Construction Pvt. V The Principal Ltd., S. Commissioner Of Income 656, At Post Chimer Taluka, Tax, Thane-1. Uran District, Raigad – 410206. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaccp4003B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mrs. Naina Chaurasia & Shri Sameer Gavli – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane-1 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 27.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3)R.W.S. 144Bof The Income Tax Act, Dated 22.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 263, assuming that the order is passed without making inquires or verification which should have been made. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT-1), Thane, Maharashtra, erred in setting aside the order by stating that order passed by the Ld.AO is very cryptic and that

M/S. R R KAPOOR COMPANY,AHMEDNAGAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

section 37 disallowing the said sum. I however on going through the record notice that the assessee turnover is approximately Rs.19.00 crore. The assessee is in the regular course of business and applied for contract with PWD. It is evident that the assessee had refused to carry out the contract. The refusal can be for many reasons like lesser contract

FCA INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED (SURVIVING ENTITY AFTER THE MERGER OF PCA MOTORS PVT LTD),PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

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

239,658,331 as against the returned income of INR 223,762,260 and also raising the consequential tax demand of INR 4,465,790. 2. Addition made, of INR 4,297,560 which has resulted in the same amount being disallowed twice. 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

239 CTR (Bom) 183, has categorically held that the AO may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice, however, if after issuing a notice under section 148, the AO accepted the contention

RBL BANK,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

239 ITR 435 (Mad.) which held the interest paid u/s. 201(1A) of the Act by the assessee does not assume the character of business expenditure and also cannot be regarded as compensatory payment. The ld. AR did not dispute the same. Therefore, we hold the interest paid on delayed payment of TDS to Central Government account is not eligible

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(OSD), CRICLE -1, KOLHAPUR vs. RBL BANK LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

239 ITR 435 (Mad.) which held the interest paid u/s. 201(1A) of the Act by the assessee does not assume the character of business expenditure and also cannot be regarded as compensatory payment. The ld. AR did not dispute the same. Therefore, we hold the interest paid on delayed payment of TDS to Central Government account is not eligible