VIJAY VYANKATRAO MANE,SADASHIV PEATH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER , ADDL/JCIT(A)- CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

260/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the CPC passing intimation dated 01.08.2016 wherein the CPC made disallowance of Rs.33,53,759/-. 2 3. Before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), it was submitted that the variance made by the CPC is due to the interest paid by the assessee. It was submitted that since there

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

260 (SC)] (Tata Tea decision') was not dealing with the nature of DOT as to whether it is tax on the company or a tax on the shareholder. Thus, the Tata Tea decision does not support the cause of assesses, having regard to the well settled principle that a judicial precedent is only "an authority for what it actually decides

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

260 to 262 & 285.286/Ind/2019 District Prosecution Officer which the quarterly return pertains, where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act. At the same time, in terms of determining the period for which fees can be levied, only saving could be that for the period of delay falling prior

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

260 to 262 & 285.286/Ind/2019 District Prosecution Officer which the quarterly return pertains, where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act. At the same time, in terms of determining the period for which fees can be levied, only saving could be that for the period of delay falling prior

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

260 to 262 & 285.286/Ind/2019 District Prosecution Officer which the quarterly return pertains, where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act. At the same time, in terms of determining the period for which fees can be levied, only saving could be that for the period of delay falling prior

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

260 to 262 & 285.286/Ind/2019 District Prosecution Officer which the quarterly return pertains, where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act. At the same time, in terms of determining the period for which fees can be levied, only saving could be that for the period of delay falling prior

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

260 to 262 & 285.286/Ind/2019 District Prosecution Officer which the quarterly return pertains, where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act. At the same time, in terms of determining the period for which fees can be levied, only saving could be that for the period of delay falling prior

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

260 to 262 & 285.286/Ind/2019 District Prosecution Officer which the quarterly return pertains, where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act. At the same time, in terms of determining the period for which fees can be levied, only saving could be that for the period of delay falling prior

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

260 to 262 & 285.286/Ind/2019 District Prosecution Officer which the quarterly return pertains, where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act. At the same time, in terms of determining the period for which fees can be levied, only saving could be that for the period of delay falling prior

CENTRAL ORDNANCE DEPOT,PUNE vs. ITO TDS, WARD-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

260 to 262 & 285.286/Ind/2019 District Prosecution Officer which the quarterly return pertains, where the return is filed after 1.6.2015, the AO can levy fee under section 234E of the Act. At the same time, in terms of determining the period for which fees can be levied, only saving could be that for the period of delay falling prior

M/S. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD,,NANDED vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS RANGE ,, NASHIK

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.2974/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. State Bank Of Vs. Joint Cit, Tds Range, Hyderabad, Nashik. At Shrinagar, Nanded- 431602. Tan : Nskso8336G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2022 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, Aurangabad Dated 23.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Honorable Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.2,11,100/- U/S 272(A)2(K) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty May Please Be Cancelled. 2. Appellant Prays For Just & Equitable Relief. 3. Appellant Prays To Add, Alter, Amend And/Or Withdraw The Ground/S During The Proceedings.”

TDS Range, Nashik rejecting the explanation of the appellant had proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs.2,11,100/- vide order dated 03.06.2013. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of penalty, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order had confirmed the levy of penalty rejecting the plea of the appellant that mere technical

NIHILENT LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT-2, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. [(2000)243 ITR 83(SC)], wherein it was clearly held that the Commissioner

NIHILENT LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. [(2000)243 ITR 83(SC)], wherein it was clearly held that the Commissioner

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [(2000)(243 ITR 83(SC)]. wherein it was clearly held that

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

TDS has been deducted. Similar payments have been made in the past years also and no such disallowance was made. 3.2 However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and made an addition of Rs.4,41,21,079/- in respect of 13 sub-contractors by regarding as under: “5.2 Submission of the assessee

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

260/-, Rs.25,28,100/- and Rs.\n14,32,590/-received by the appellant fromNew Delhi Television Ltd (NDTV), Bennett\nColeman & Co. Ltd., Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. and Times Global\nBroadcasting Company Ltd.at sr. no. 2, 6, 9 & 10 respectively of the reconciliation\nstatement reproduced at para 8.1 above, the appellant has submitted that these\nreceipts were pertaining to DMSPL

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

TDS is accounted for by journal voucher and the assessee has not accepted any loan during the year under appeal, therefore, the provisions of section 269SS of the Act are not applicable on account of loan / deposit shown to have been taken from Mr. Anil Kharadkar at Rs.8,10,000/-. So far as the amount of Rs.5 lacs received from

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

260 2,781,271 138,280 3,820,041 30,431,612 37,171,204 1,607,101 499,026,955 2.6A reworked B.2 Sub total Indirect 5,185,975,966 11,073,027 550,532 15,208,666 121,156,878 147,989,103 12,437,115 5,052,549,778 expenditure B = B1 + Total Expenditure

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)

260/- and claimed refund of Rs.2,60,420/- after payment of income tax of Rs.6,51,59,576/-. During the year under consideration, the Assessee had claimed a deduction under section 10AA of the IT Act amounting to Rs.8,54,21,181/- being 100% of the profits and gains derived from export by the SEZ unit based on the certificate