M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

gains of\nbusiness which is not incidental to the attainment of its objectives\nor separate books of account are not maintained by such trust or\ninstitution in respect of the business which is incidental to the\nattainment of its objectives; or\n(c) the trust or institution has applied any part of its income from\nthe property held under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

201 ITR 101 (Kar.) and the decision of the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Beco Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 148 ITR 478 (P&H). 51. As regards the applicability of ratio of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

201 ITR 101 (Kar.) and the decision of the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Beco Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 148 ITR 478 (P&H). 51. As regards the applicability of ratio of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

201 (Bom). It is the prayer of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the Assessing Officer. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue

ALNESH MOHAMADAKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

201\n(Bom). It is the prayer of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an\nopportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the\nrequisite details before the Assessing Officer. Considering the totality of the facts\nof the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue

MR. GAURAV RAJENDRA MALU,JAYSINGPUR vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

capital gains from transactions on which Securities Transaction Tax is paid in the light of the above stated facts of the case, rendered the assessment order dated 29/03/2022 as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Therefore the assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act on 29/03/2022

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

capital gain calculation and copy of deed.” 23. We find the assessee in response to the said notice has submitted various details, copy of which is placed at page 374 of the paper book. We find as per para 1 of the said letter the assessee has enclosed the following details: “1. Details of person from whom unsecured loan taken

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

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

201, Sai Siddhi Congress s Ward-2(4), Pune. Bhavan, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411005. PAN: AHOPS1114Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – AR Revenue by Shri A.D.Kulkarni – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 18/11/2024 Date of pronouncement 20/12/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) Where any business or\nprofession carried on by a firm has been discontinued or where a firm is\ndissolved, the ITO shall make an assessment of the total income of the firm\nas if no such discontinuance or dissolution had taken place, and all the\nprovisions of this Act, including the provisions relating to the levy of a\npenalty

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) Where any business or\nprofession carried on by a firm has been discontinued or where a firm is\ndissolved, the ITO shall make an assessment of the total income of the firm\nas if no such discontinuance or dissolution had taken place, and all the\nprovisions of this Act, including the provisions relating to the levy of a\npenalty

SHAMKANT KESHAV KOTKAR (PROP. NANDAN BUILDERS),PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

201 pages. ITA No.1358/PUN/2025 [A] 2.1 The ld.AR Mr.Kishor Phadke submitted that in this case, original assessment order was passed on 12.12.2019 for A.Y.2017- 18 under section 143(3) of the Act, accepting returned income at Rs.2,18,66,125/-. In this case, Assessee had e-filed return of income on 07.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs.2

MARATHI BANDHKAM VYA vs. AYIK ASSOCIATION,PUNEVS.ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1),PUNE, PUNE

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

201, 2nd Floor, Prol Business Centre, Opp. Ratna Hospital Centre, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411016. PAN : AACTM0747L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suhas P. Bora Revenue by : Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual) Date of hearing : 17.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 10.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.07.2025 passed

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANGLI CIRCLE,, SANGLI vs. ANAND DEVELOPERS, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

capital gains under general law, normally, the ownership of title of the immovable property would pass on to the purchaser on the registration of the sale deed from date of execution of sale deed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah vs. CIT, 57 ITR 185 (SC). But, this is not an absolute

ANAND DEVELOPERS,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SANGLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

capital gains under general law, normally, the ownership of title of the immovable property would pass on to the purchaser on the registration of the sale deed from date of execution of sale deed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah vs. CIT, 57 ITR 185 (SC). But, this is not an absolute

BHAKTI KISHOR GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFCIER -3(5), PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Bhakti Kishor Gada 201, Sai Siddhi, Behind Congress Bhavan, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411004. Pan: Aghpg4273A. . . . . . . . Appellant

201, Sai Siddhi, Behind Congress Bhavan, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411004. PAN: AGHPG4273A. . . . . . . . Appellant V/s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Pune. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : None for the Assessee Revenue by : Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 09/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09/09/2024 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The assessee impugns DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1062556261

LEKHAKOSH KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PR. CIT, PUNE-4, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

201, Lekhakosh Bhavan, Collector Vs. Kacheri Compound, Dist.-Pune, PAN : AABAL2787R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 14-05-2025 Date of 22-07-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(OSD), CRICLE -1, KOLHAPUR vs. RBL BANK LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

201(1A) of the Act by the assessee does not assume the character of business expenditure and also cannot be regarded as compensatory payment. The ld. AR did not dispute the same. Therefore, we hold the interest paid on delayed payment of TDS to Central Government account is not eligible for allowance as business expenditure, consequently, the deduction claimed

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(OSD), CRICLE -1, KOLHAPUR vs. RBL BANK LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

201(1A) of the Act by the assessee does not assume the character of business expenditure and also cannot be regarded as compensatory payment. The ld. AR did not dispute the same. Therefore, we hold the interest paid on delayed payment of TDS to Central Government account is not eligible for allowance as business expenditure, consequently, the deduction claimed

RBL BANK,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

201(1A) of the Act by the assessee does not assume the character of business expenditure and also cannot be regarded as compensatory payment. The ld. AR did not dispute the same. Therefore, we hold the interest paid on delayed payment of TDS to Central Government account is not eligible for allowance as business expenditure, consequently, the deduction claimed