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

section 43B of the Act. 15. The last point for the adjudication is the special manner of determination of income of the insurance companies as prescribed under rule 5 of Schedule 1 of the Act. The Profit and Loss Account disclosed by the assessee i.e. its annual accounts are sacrosanct. The said rule provides that the income to be determined

TOKAI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,HINGOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(1), JALNA, JALNA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.571/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Tokai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1, Jalna. Villag Kurunda, Taluka Basmath . District, Hingoli – 431512. Pan: Aaat6997Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anand Partani – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2024

43B of the Act are not applicable for interest on loan availed from government and therefore the addition is liable to be deleted. 2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in disallowing interest expenses paid to Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank of Rs 38,13,100, - under section

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

43B r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pronounced subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, therefore, there is no error on the order of the Assessing Officer so as to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 10 11. So far as the applicability of provisions

SALASAR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.59/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Salasar Warehousing Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, V Ward-6(1), Pune. F-2,Warehouse, Sr.No.20/2A, S Near Mundhwa Bridge, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aamcs4834C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Kandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 27/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/11/2023

section 43B, which includes GST payment of Rs.12,34,655/-, TDS payment of Rs.15,21,817/-, Employers contribution to PF of Rs.64

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. FORCE MOTORS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1192/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05

sections of the company. As the claims have been certified by the Chartered Accountant, disallowance of these expenditure on the ground that they have not been debited to the P & L account of the current year and have not accounted in the books of the current year to which they pertain to in view of mercantile system of accounting followed

BHARAT KESHAVLAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

43B is not according to the provisions of the Act The issue raised be thus deleted. 6. Issue no 9 raised on account of difference in claim of TDS and income offered to tax is not according to the provisions of section

SHREE RAVIRAJ PASHANKAR DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-4, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1201/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shree Raviraj Pashankar V The Principal Developers, S Commissioner Of Income Office No.1 To 5 Millenium Tax, Pune-4. Star, Dhole Patil Road, Near Ruby Hall, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aalas6505J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar & Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – Ar(S) Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-4, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.03.2024 For

TDS and other outstanding as on 31.03.2018 and also the ITA No.1201/PUN/2024 [A] applicability of provisions of section 43B of the Act for which

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

43B in the case of the employer’s contribution and section 36(v) read with section 2(24)(x) in the case of the employees’ contribution which has been deemed to be the income of the assessee. The plain consequence of the disallowance and the add back that has been made by the Assessing Officer is an increase

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

43B in the case of the employer’s contribution and section 36(v) read with section 2(24)(x) in the case of the employees’ contribution which has been deemed to be the income of the assessee. The plain consequence of the disallowance and the add back that has been made by the Assessing Officer is an increase

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

43B in the case of the employer’s contribution and section 36(v) read with section 2(24)(x) in the case of the employees’ contribution which has been deemed to be the income of the assessee. The plain consequence of the disallowance and the add back that has been made by the Assessing Officer is an increase

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

43B in the case of the employer’s contribution and section 36(v) read with section 2(24)(x) in the case of the employees’ contribution which has been deemed to be the income of the assessee. The plain consequence of the disallowance and the add back that has been made by the Assessing Officer is an increase

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

43B in the case of the employer’s contribution and section 36(v) read with section 2(24)(x) in the case of the employees’ contribution which has been deemed to be the income of the assessee. The plain consequence of the disallowance and the add back that has been made by the Assessing Officer is an increase

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

43B in the case of the employer’s contribution and section 36(v) read with section 2(24)(x) in the case of the employees’ contribution which has been deemed to be the income of the assessee. The plain consequence of the disallowance and the add back that has been made by the Assessing Officer is an increase

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

43B in the case of the employer’s contribution and section 36(v) read with section 2(24)(x) in the case of the employees’ contribution which has been deemed to be the income of the assessee. The plain consequence of the disallowance and the add back that has been made by the Assessing Officer is an increase

RAMESH HARIBHAU GAWALI,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

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

section 201(1A) of the IT Act and relevant rules have specific provision of law and put the assessee in liability to pay mandatory interest for delay in depositing TDS within time, the provision of law shall have to be read as it is and cannot be stretched to give different meaning under the law. The decision cited

MONK AUTOMATION P LTD,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the appellant is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 163/Pun/2022 Monk Automation Pvt. Ltd. L-19, Nr Galxo, Midc, Ambad, Nasik-422010 Pan:Aabcm9042N . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant

TDS reflected in Form No 26As for sum of ₹4,44,745/- ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 5 Monk Automation Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.163/PUN/2022 PAN:AABCM9042N 3.2 Aggrieved by the same, the assessee taken up the matter before first appellate authority [for short “FAA”] and in the event of unsuccessful attempt before Ld. FAA, the assessee brought up the matter

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

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