SHRIMANT BABASAHEB DESHMUKH MULTI STATE DAIRY CO-OP LTD,,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SANGLI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2215/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

277 (Guj.) has held that disallowance for non-deduction of TDS liability would increase the profits of the assessee from business and ultimate profit would qualify for deduction. The Assessing Officer shall thus also examine the issue of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) and its eligibility for deduction in the light of the aforesaid decision and thereafter decide the issue

M/S. SHRIMAN BABASAHEB DESHMUKH MULTI STATE CO-OP DIARY LTD,,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SANGLI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2215/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

277 (Guj.) has held that disallowance for non-deduction of TDS liability would increase the profits of the assessee from business and ultimate profit would qualify for deduction. The Assessing Officer shall thus also examine the issue of disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) and its eligibility for deduction in the light of the aforesaid decision and thereafter decide the issue

DILIP GULAB RAUT,DHULE vs. ADDL JCI A DELHI, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 69A ignoring that the amount was part of legitimate business transactions. ITA No.517/PUN/2025[A] 2. That the learned CIT(A) failed to consider the supporting documents proving that the deposits were used for prepaid recharges on the Vakrangee portal. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in considering Rs.9,000 as commission income based on an arbitrary calculation rather

SATISH S. BANSAL,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

TDS was paid during the impugned assessment year 2010-2011, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Appellant denies himself in law and on facts to be liable to be tax on an amount being Rs.12,16,496/-, being addition made as disallowance of depreciation under provision of section 32 of the Act, under the facts

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

TDS provisions. As regards, the claim for allowance as revenue expenditure on product development expenditure of Rs.4,19,75,171/-, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the same following the Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

INDO ENTERPRISE PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS has not been claimed was included in total gross receipts of Rs.6,85,87,267/-. 3.1 Therefore, the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax observed failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine above issues rendering assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 29.12.2016 as erroneous so far as it is prejudicial