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

56,44,960/- and the same was revised on 30.03.2015 at total income of Rs.306,36,31,370/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune (hereinafter called as the ‘Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 12.01.2017 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12 PUNE, PUNE vs. JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PUNE

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

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

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. AYs. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 30. Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12 PUNE, PUNE vs. JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PUNE

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

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

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. AYs. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 30. Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12 PUNE, PUNE vs. JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT, PUNE

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

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

TDS from the interest other than interest on securities. Therefore it cannot be said that cooperative banks are excluded from the definition of cooperative societies by such an amendment. AYs. 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 30. Moreover, as reliance placed on the aforesaid decision for applicability of section 80P(4) of the Act in the facts of the case

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

56,225/- 27,41,121/- 3.1 Further, on perusal of assessment records, it is found that there is substantial variation between consideration received or accrued and value adopted or assessed or assessable. The same difference is corroborated by the Index-II submitted with respect to the concerned sales. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had relied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

x The Department in appeals has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on solitary issue of allowing „Bad Debts Written off‟ below Rs.1,00,000/- in assessment years 2005-06 (Rs.18,33,117/-), 2008-09 (Rs.7,96,767/-) and 2011-12 (Rs.1,22,97,502/-). 3. The issue wise findings on the grounds raised in the appeals

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

x The Department in appeals has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on solitary issue of allowing „Bad Debts Written off‟ below Rs.1,00,000/- in assessment years 2005-06 (Rs.18,33,117/-), 2008-09 (Rs.7,96,767/-) and 2011-12 (Rs.1,22,97,502/-). 3. The issue wise findings on the grounds raised in the appeals

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

x The Department in appeals has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on solitary issue of allowing „Bad Debts Written off‟ below Rs.1,00,000/- in assessment years 2005-06 (Rs.18,33,117/-), 2008-09 (Rs.7,96,767/-) and 2011-12 (Rs.1,22,97,502/-). 3. The issue wise findings on the grounds raised in the appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

x The Department in appeals has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on solitary issue of allowing „Bad Debts Written off‟ below Rs.1,00,000/- in assessment years 2005-06 (Rs.18,33,117/-), 2008-09 (Rs.7,96,767/-) and 2011-12 (Rs.1,22,97,502/-). 3. The issue wise findings on the grounds raised in the appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

x The Department in appeals has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on solitary issue of allowing „Bad Debts Written off‟ below Rs.1,00,000/- in assessment years 2005-06 (Rs.18,33,117/-), 2008-09 (Rs.7,96,767/-) and 2011-12 (Rs.1,22,97,502/-). 3. The issue wise findings on the grounds raised in the appeals

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

x The Department in appeals has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on solitary issue of allowing „Bad Debts Written off‟ below Rs.1,00,000/- in assessment years 2005-06 (Rs.18,33,117/-), 2008-09 (Rs.7,96,767/-) and 2011-12 (Rs.1,22,97,502/-). 3. The issue wise findings on the grounds raised in the appeals

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

x The Department in appeals has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on solitary issue of allowing „Bad Debts Written off‟ below Rs.1,00,000/- in assessment years 2005-06 (Rs.18,33,117/-), 2008-09 (Rs.7,96,767/-) and 2011-12 (Rs.1,22,97,502/-). 3. The issue wise findings on the grounds raised in the appeals

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

x The Department in appeals has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on solitary issue of allowing „Bad Debts Written off‟ below Rs.1,00,000/- in assessment years 2005-06 (Rs.18,33,117/-), 2008-09 (Rs.7,96,767/-) and 2011-12 (Rs.1,22,97,502/-). 3. The issue wise findings on the grounds raised in the appeals

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.

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 in the business profits of the assessee. The contention of the Revenue that in computing the deduction under section

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.

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 in the business profits of the assessee. The contention of the Revenue that in computing the deduction under section

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.

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 in the business profits of the assessee. The contention of the Revenue that in computing the deduction under section

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.

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 in the business profits of the assessee. The contention of the Revenue that in computing the deduction under section

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.

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 in the business profits of the assessee. The contention of the Revenue that in computing the deduction under section

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.

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 in the business profits of the assessee. The contention of the Revenue that in computing the deduction under section