DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

TDS liability can't be fastened on a retrospective basis considering the principle of Lex Non Cogit Ad impossibilia (law does not compel a man to do what he cannot perform). Various other situations 8 Kumar Kondiba Shingare in which, other Honorable Courts have taken a similar view as above, are also given at the end part of the legal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

TDS liability can't be fastened on a retrospective basis considering the principle of Lex Non Cogit Ad impossibilia (law does not compel a man to do what he cannot perform). Various other situations 8 Kumar Kondiba Shingare in which, other Honorable Courts have taken a similar view as above, are also given at the end part of the legal

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

TDS liability can't be fastened on a retrospective basis considering the principle of Lex Non Cogit Ad impossibilia (law does not compel a man to do what he cannot perform). Various other situations 8 Kumar Kondiba Shingare in which, other Honorable Courts have taken a similar view as above, are also given at the end part of the legal

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

TDS liability can't be fastened on a retrospective basis considering the principle of Lex Non Cogit Ad impossibilia (law does not compel a man to do what he cannot perform). Various other situations 8 Kumar Kondiba Shingare in which, other Honorable Courts have taken a similar view as above, are also given at the end part of the legal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

TDS violates deduction neutrality non-discrimination clause in DTAA as there is no similar bar for residents as per Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB). 3.8 Without prejudice to above, the learned Assessing Officer /DRP erred in not restricting the addition u/s.40(a)(i) to Rs.5,08,44,199/- (being the difference between Rs.9,44,43,764/- less Rs.4

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

TDS violates deduction neutrality non-discrimination clause in DTAA as there is no similar bar for residents as per Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB). 3.8 Without prejudice to above, the learned Assessing Officer /DRP erred in not restricting the addition u/s.40(a)(i) to Rs.5,08,44,199/- (being the difference between Rs.9,44,43,764/- less Rs.4

TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

TDS violates deduction neutrality non-discrimination clause in DTAA as there is no similar bar for residents as per Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB). 3.8 Without prejudice to above, the learned Assessing Officer /DRP erred in not restricting the addition u/s.40(a)(i) to Rs.5,08,44,199/- (being the difference between Rs.9,44,43,764/- less Rs.4

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 801B(10), which requires interpretation of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority The texts as well as contexts of both the cases are altogether different and are streets away from each other. Ergo, the reliance of the Id. AR on this judgment is of no consequence in the present case

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 801B(10), which requires interpretation of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority The texts as well as contexts of both the cases are altogether different and are streets away from each other. Ergo, the reliance of the Id. AR on this judgment is of no consequence in the present case

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 801B(10), which requires interpretation of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority The texts as well as contexts of both the cases are altogether different and are streets away from each other. Ergo, the reliance of the Id. AR on this judgment is of no consequence in the present case

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 801B(10), which requires interpretation of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority The texts as well as contexts of both the cases are altogether different and are streets away from each other. Ergo, the reliance of the Id. AR on this judgment is of no consequence in the present case

SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR,(HUF),,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.260/Pun/2018 िनधा!रण वष! / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 68 of the Act. Infact, there is some mess in the deposit of said cash originally in the capital gains account with the said bank and subsequently into the normal bank account of the assessee. 6. Further, the facts relating to other addition of balance of Rs.69 lakhs include that the said amount was credited in the bank account

MS RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,JALGAON vs. DCIT, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S Rajmal Lakhichand Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon – 425001 Pan: Aacfr8609L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2025 O R D E R

TDS- Rs. 30,22,145/- 5. Interest on LBT- Rs.133/- 6. Interest on VAT- Rs. 2,02,248/- 5 Out of this, interest of Rs.2,16,99,167/- paid to bank and interest of Rs.3,31,77,113/- paid to others is liable for considering for disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 9. He analyzed