AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 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)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

253 (SC) and CIT Vs. Smt. Datta Mahendra Shah [2015] 62 taxmann.com 325/235 Taxman 1 (Bombay HC) and relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the case in hand". Further the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimal Chand Jain(supra) held that the manifold

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

Gains of Business or Profession” is to be computed as per provisions of section 28 of the Act (i.e. the charging section). It has been principally held in numerous judicial precedents that expenditure/losses incurred in connection with business operations are deductible in deriving profits/income of that business even in cases where the same may not be explicitly provided

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

Gains of Business or Profession” is to be computed as per provisions of section 28 of the Act (i.e. the charging section). It has been principally held in numerous judicial precedents that expenditure/losses incurred in connection with business operations are deductible in deriving profits/income of that business even in cases where the same may not be explicitly provided

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

capital gain’ as has been originally declared it as ‘business income’ in the books. It is clearly a case of re-classification of income and cannot be considered as under reporting or misreporting of income. 7 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited 11. Though assessee has referred various decisions in the case law paper book referred (supra), I however taking note

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

253 of the Income Tax 1. Act is emanating out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - Pune – 11 dt.21.12.2015 for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- 2.1 Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of PVC Resin

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section 37(1

DCIT, CIRCLE-8 vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section 37(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANACE LTD,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section 37(1

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section 37(1

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section 37(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,, PUNE

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

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section 37(1

SHRI SUNIL NANA KADAM,TAL RAHURI, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (ITO), WARD 4, AHMEDNAGAR

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

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

253(1 )(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), against the order dated 09th August 2024, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC, Delhi) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)’) under section 250 of the Act, confirming the assessment order under section 147 r.w.s

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

capital gains. This claim of excess expense in this regard, in my opinion, when surrendered by the appellant by realizing such wrong claim, initially made due to inadvertence, cannot be held as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, as has been held by the AO while levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. I further find that

MARUTI G.THOPTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is emanating out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (A) – 6, Pune, dt.29.01.2017 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee is an individual having income from business, capital gains and other sources. Assessee filed his return

WARANA INDUSTRIES LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1284/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Warana Industries Limited, The Acit, Circle-1, Gat No.795, Tatyasaheb Kore Vs Kolhapur. Nager, Chikurde Road, A/P: Warnanagar, Tal.Panhala, Kolhapur – 416113. Pan: Aaacw 1694 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranikh – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2022 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)-1, Kolhapur For The A.Y. 2006-07 Dated 16.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.05.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Gain declared by the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that assessee has debited certain expenditures as revenue expenditure under the Head- Purchase of dairy machinery and spare parts. For the reasons discussed, the AO treated Rs.79,26,31/8/- as capital expenditure and disallowed it. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1

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

253 ITR 124 b. National Plastic and Allied Industries vs DCIT 67 TTJ 824 c. Mool Raj Singh and others vs ITO 63 TTJ 211 d. CIT vs Smt. Nirmal Anand 245 ITR 836 e. Jay Commercial Ltd vs CIT 66 TTJ 731 f. Hycron India vs ACIT 82 TTJ 450 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1),, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES DEPOSIT GURANTEE CORP. LTD,, PUNE

In the result, quantum assessment appeals for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1492 & 1493/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Corrigendum Is Being Issued To Correct The Typographical Mistake In The Date Of Pronouncement Mentioned In First Page Of Order. The Same May Be Read As “13.08.2021” Instead Of “13.05.2021”. (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (R.S.Syal)पुणे Pune; दििधंक Dated : 18Th August, 2021 Gcvsr

Capital gains‟, interest on FDs, etc. would fall under the head „Income from other sources‟ and the amount of loss for the year and brought forward loss from sale of mutual funds would be set off in terms of sections 70/71 and 74 of the Act. 7. In the result, these two appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1),, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES DEPOSIT GURANTEE CORP. LTD,, PUNE

In the result, quantum assessment appeals for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1492 & 1493/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Corrigendum Is Being Issued To Correct The Typographical Mistake In The Date Of Pronouncement Mentioned In First Page Of Order. The Same May Be Read As “13.08.2021” Instead Of “13.05.2021”. (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (R.S.Syal)पुणे Pune; दििधंक Dated : 18Th August, 2021 Gcvsr

Capital gains‟, interest on FDs, etc. would fall under the head „Income from other sources‟ and the amount of loss for the year and brought forward loss from sale of mutual funds would be set off in terms of sections 70/71 and 74 of the Act. 7. In the result, these two appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes