M/S. SHARADA PAPER COMPANY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (4),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1547/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S.Sharada Paper Company, The Income Tax Officer, 436/8, Narayan Peth, Vs Ward-11(4), Pune. Maharashtra – 411030. Pan: Aaffs 1470 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Dated 18.07.2019 Arising Out Of Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.03.2013. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Withdrawal Of Claim For The Carry Forward Of Loss For A.Y. 2003-04, A.Y. 2004-05, A.Y.2005-06 & A.Y.2006- 07 Without Verifying The Facts. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Rectification Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 154 & Thereby Withdrawing Loss Allowed In The Assessment Made Under Section 143(3) Of Income Taxact,1961 Without Appreciating The Fact That This Is Not Mistake Apparent From Records & Hence Cannot Be Rectified Under 154 Of The Act.

TDS Certificates. Thus, it means assessee had filed return of income for A.Y. 2003-04 along with Audit Report. In the paper book, page no.64 to 83 is the Audit Report. The assessee had filed copies of the audit report before the ld.CIT(A) also. Similarly, the return of income for A.Y. 2004-05 (page 84 of the paper book

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

Set Off against current years income. However, there is no discussion in the assessment order. The ld.Pr.CIT has held that the AO has not carried out any verification. The ld.Pr.CIT has 4 Ashish Niranjan Shah [A] analysed the transactions of the assessee at length in the order u/s 263 of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order

LIEBHERR CMC TECH I P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Loss Account and receipts received as TDS, set-aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

TDS Chandraghant PNEV06054 Bleach Shrirampur 52,192 5219 226 a Dealer Pvt. G Chem Dist. Ltd. Enterprise Ahmednaga s r Chinpumi PNEV06054 Bleach Shrirampur 2,08,76 20877 104 traders Pvt. G Chem Dist. 7 Ltd. Enterprise Ahmednaga s r Chinpumi PNEV06054 Bleach Shrirampur 1,68,49 16850 84 traders Pvt. G Chem Dist. 3 Ltd. Enterprise Ahmednaga

M/S KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2021-22

set off of any loss or allowance for unabsorbed depreciation deemed so under section 72A, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause (i); and (iv) by claiming the depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such

DISCOVERY DIGITAL NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 , NASHIK

losses u/s 72 to 74A. Therefore, it is submitted that whenever the\nlegislature intended to enforce an embargo on the assessee to make claims in the\nreturn of income itself. it has brought into the legislation explicit provisions in that\nregard. Thus, in absence of any such provision in section 244A which prohibits\ngrant of interest if the credit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

TDS credit of Rs.4,02,541/- thereby claiming a refund of Rs.4,02,541/-. The return was revised on 06.03.2020 claiming income tax refund of Rs.2541/- and carry forward loss of Rs.3,95,51,713/-. However, the CPC did not allow the claim of carry forward 2 business loss of Rs.3,95,51,713/- as claimed in the return

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

set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv)disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v)disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

set-off of loss of Rs.2,15,43,314/- as against returned loss of Rs.22,83,68,460/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.24,99,11,774/- which pertains to disallowance of commission expenses of Rs.2,43,335/- & addition u/s 41(1) of the IT Act on account of waiver of loan of Rs.24

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1, PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

set-off of loss of Rs.2,15,43,314/- as against returned loss of Rs.22,83,68,460/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.24,99,11,774/- which pertains to disallowance of commission expenses of Rs.2,43,335/- & addition u/s 41(1) of the IT Act on account of waiver of loan of Rs.24

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

set-off of loss of Rs.2,15,43,314/- as against returned loss of Rs.22,83,68,460/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.24,99,11,774/- which pertains to disallowance of commission expenses of Rs.2,43,335/- & addition u/s 41(1) of the IT Act on account of waiver of loan of Rs.24

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

set-off of loss of Rs.2,15,43,314/- as against returned loss of Rs.22,83,68,460/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.24,99,11,774/- which pertains to disallowance of commission expenses of Rs.2,43,335/- & addition u/s 41(1) of the IT Act on account of waiver of loan of Rs.24

RAJESH MOHANLAL BORA,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, NASHIK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1609/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajesh Mohanlal Bora, 401, Rushiraj House, Thatte Nagar, College Road, Nashik – 422 005 Pan : Abcpb5526F . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Ito Ward- 1(1) Nashik . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/08/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Dove Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 29/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Income Tax Officer 1(1), Nashik [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 8

set off against other head vi) Cash deposit in bank accounts 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, upon a perusal of profit & loss account [for short “P&L”] the Ld. AO observing the payment of finance charges of ₹18,82,544/- to Shriram City Union Finance Limited a NBFC, has put the assessee to notice to clarify

AAM INDIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

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

TDS credit of INR 2,56,500 which is clearly visible in Form 26AS for the subject assessment year Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 270A the Act 15. Erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings by the AO as outlined above under section 274 in conjunction with section 270A of the Act. Any consequential

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

loss set off against other heads of income,  High liabilities as compared to low income/receipts,  Lower amount disallowed under section 40A(7) in ITR in comparison to audit report,  Claim or large Refund,  Low income compared to large commission receipts,  Real estate business with high closing stock,  Large difference in the opening stock of current year,  High ratio of refund

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.

losses against such surrendered income, in the context of sections 70 and 71 of the Act. By drawing an analogy from the said precedent, it is canvassed by the Revenue that the impugned additional income is not eligible for the benefits of section 80IB(10) of the Act. 39. We have carefully perused the fact-situation in the case before

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.

losses against such surrendered income, in the context of sections 70 and 71 of the Act. By drawing an analogy from the said precedent, it is canvassed by the Revenue that the impugned additional income is not eligible for the benefits of section 80IB(10) of the Act. 39. We have carefully perused the fact-situation in the case before

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.

losses against such surrendered income, in the context of sections 70 and 71 of the Act. By drawing an analogy from the said precedent, it is canvassed by the Revenue that the impugned additional income is not eligible for the benefits of section 80IB(10) of the Act. 39. We have carefully perused the fact-situation in the case before