VIPINCHANDRA M. CHOKHAWALI,NAVAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1551/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Along With Stay Application 06/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1551/Pun/2024) Vipinchandra M. Chokhawala, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Old Station Road, Dal Mill, Dhule Nandurbar, Navapur-425418 Maharashtra Pan : Adnpc8588M Appellant Respondent

Capital Gains and Income from Other sources. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2018-19 was filed on 04.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.78,24,250/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 03.02.2021 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) at a total income of Rs.2

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

2) makes it very clear that DRP has jurisdiction only and only with reference to any variation proposed in the Draft Assessment Order by the Assessing Officer. The DRP cannot consider any other issue where there is no variation proposed in the Draft Assessment Order. 7.3 In the case of the Assessee admittedly there was no proposed adjustment qua deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. ASHISH JUGALKISHOR BHALA, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

capital gain is calculated by considering the WDV as per Income Tax Act. The reason behind the difference in these two mechanisms for arriving at the fair valuation is the question of law. However, the new shareholders might lose the benefit of tax saving on depreciation. Consequently, this element to determine the valuation of the unquoted equity shares

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

x) With regard to the disallowance of expenditure on account of Freebies/Incentives to doctors amounting to Rs.2,90,94,637/-, the ld. CIT(A) considering the fact that this expenditure is only discount and incentives given to doctors following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 allowed the claim

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

capital gain is calculated by considering the WDV as per Income Tax Act. The reason behind the difference in these two mechanisms for arriving at the fair valuation is the question of law. However, the new shareholders might lose the benefit of tax saving on depreciation. Consequently, this element to determine the valuation of the unquoted equity shares

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

x) deems amount received from the employees as income and the amounts retained by the employer from out of the employee’s income by way of deduction etc. were treated as income in the hands of the employer (assessee). Further, it held unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

24,250/- as long term capital gain arising in the hands of the assessee in the relevant AY 2014-15. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee in his submissions dated 14.11.2023 stated as under : “Ground No 6, 7, 8 & 9 : During the financial year 2013-14, the appellant assessee entered into a compromise agreement with Agarwal Gupta Associates & Agrawal

LATIKA SAKHARAM PATIL,RAJASTHAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

24,566/-. The entire income declared by the assessee was income from other sources which consists of Rs.44,562/- as interest, Rs.3,72,500/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Rs.2,07,504/- as pension income. On the basis of information available on record that the assessee has deposited

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 56(2)(viia) in the assessee's case does not arise. It may be applicable in the case of Tapti. Hence, no purpose would be served by setting aside the asst. of the assessee. 2.5] Accordingly, the assessee submits that his case is totally genuine and the capital loss on sale of Shivalik shares should be allowed

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

X’ and from whom papers were found and assessments were made under section 148 of the Act and penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise jurisdictional ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 10 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors legal issue as to section under which the proceedings could take places. He further

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

X’ and from whom papers were found and assessments were made under section 148 of the Act and penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise jurisdictional ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 10 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors legal issue as to section under which the proceedings could take places. He further

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

X’ and from whom papers were found and assessments were made under section 148 of the Act and penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise jurisdictional ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 10 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors legal issue as to section under which the proceedings could take places. He further

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

X’ and from whom papers were found and assessments were made under section 148 of the Act and penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise jurisdictional ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 10 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors legal issue as to section under which the proceedings could take places. He further

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

X’ and from whom papers were found and assessments were made under section 148 of the Act and penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise jurisdictional ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 10 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors legal issue as to section under which the proceedings could take places. He further

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

X’ and from whom papers were found and assessments were made under section 148 of the Act and penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise jurisdictional ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 10 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors legal issue as to section under which the proceedings could take places. He further

POKHARNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

gains\n3b\n0\nс.\nOther sources\n3c\n9360082\nd.\nu/s 115BBF\n3d\n0\ne.\nu/s 115BBG\n3e\n0\n4a\nProfit or loss included in 1, which is referred to in 4a\nsection\n0\n44AD/44ADA/44AE/44B/44BB/44BBA\n/44BBB/44D/44DA/44DB/First Schedule of Income-\ntax Act (other than profit from life insurance business\nreferred to in section 115B)\ni\n44AD\n4i\n0\n6\nBalance

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