DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Refund claim (iv) Unsecured loan 2.1. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in response to which, the Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining

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

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, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE vs. M/S. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bank Of Maharashtra Vs. Dcit, Circle 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, 1(1), Pune Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Circle Vs. Bank Of Maharashtra 1(1), Pune 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent

TDS amounting to Rs.1,71,338/- on the ground that the same is „penal‟ in nature. The Revenue strongly supported the impugned disallowance placing reliance on the learned lower authorities‟ action. We find no merit in its arguments in light of Lachmandas Mathuradas vs. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 799 (SC), DCIT vs. Rungta Mines Ltd. 2018 (10) TMI 672 – ITAT

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PUNE

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bank Of Maharashtra Vs. Dcit, Circle 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, 1(1), Pune Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Circle Vs. Bank Of Maharashtra 1(1), Pune 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent

TDS amounting to Rs.1,71,338/- on the ground that the same is „penal‟ in nature. The Revenue strongly supported the impugned disallowance placing reliance on the learned lower authorities‟ action. We find no merit in its arguments in light of Lachmandas Mathuradas vs. CIT (2002) 254 ITR 799 (SC), DCIT vs. Rungta Mines Ltd. 2018 (10) TMI 672 – ITAT

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

TDS claim on receipts not offered for taxation by the assessee.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(2)", "142(1)", "143(3)", "271(1)(c)", "254

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.

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

254 had accepted the position that the purpose of foreign visits of the employees is only for the purpose of to take decision whether the machinery was suitable for business or not and the foreign visits by the employees were not undertaken in connection with the any acquired plant and machinery. It is also matter of record that the impugned

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

254 (SC) and the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 74 Taxman 206 (Bombay) for the aforesaid proposition. In such circumstances, where the assessee has collected the contribution to the ERF from the owner (insured) then he is only acting as a custodian of the said fund and the said

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

254 (SC) and the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Somaiya Orgeno- Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 74 Taxman 206 (Bombay) for the aforesaid proposition. In such circumstances, where the assessee has collected the contribution to the ERF from the owner (insured) then he is only acting as a custodian of the said fund and the said