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

56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A for under reporting of income are initiated herewith.” 8. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under: “5.2 I have gone through the submission of the appellant along with supporting documents submitted during the appellate proceedings as well as during the assessment proceedings

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)

section 56(2)(x) & 50CA in accordance with the Rule 11U & 11UA of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in accepting the second valuation report furnished by assessee for the purpose of land situated at Survey No. 79, 82, 63 & 86 Village-Yerur valuing

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

capital gain and claimed deduction u/s 54 of the I.T. Act Therefore, the Ld. AO made the impugned addition of the difference amount of Rs.17,76,450/- as income other from other sources u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the total income of the assessee. 3 During the course of appellant proceedings, the appellant has submitted

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

56 of the Act and was not 100% deductible from the Gross\nTotal Income under Section 80P of the Act, is not applicable to the\npresent Assessment Years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 involved in the\npresent appeals and therefore, whether the Income Tax Appellate\nTribunal as well as CIT(Appeals) were justified in holding that such\ninterest income

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)

56 to 58 of the case law). Relevant extract from the judgement is provided below - "48. After careful consideration of the matter and the written submissions the assessee we are of the view that TPO and the AO is not making an addition of Rs.1,83,73,764/- for the following reasons. II. That the TPO is not correct

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

SIDDHARTH PANDARINATH BHADALE,PUNE vs. ITO, PNE-W-(58)(91), PUNE

Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

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

x) of the Act on account of purchase of immovable property at valuation below value fixed by the stamp duty authorities. The appellant provided comprehensive clarifications and supporting evidence to justify the difference which was not duly considered by the AO. Additions made may please be deleted and the Appellant be granted just & proper relief. Tax Effect

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

56,25,041/-\nWIP of Rs.396,30,86,527/-being borrowing cost is to be included in WIP as on\n31/03/2014) Incurred by the assessee as borrowing cost which is\ndisproportionately claimed is disallowed and added back to total income of\nassessee. Penalty proceeding under section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961\nfor concealment of income

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

56, which is\nthe first in this group of sections, enacts in sub-section (1) that income of every\nkind which is not chargeable to tax under the head \"Income from other sources\nand subsection (2) includes in such income various items, one of which is\n\"dividends\". Dividend on shares is thus income chargeable under the head\n\"Income

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

56, which is the first in this group of sections, enacts in sub-section (1) that income of every kind which is not chargeable to tax under the head "Income from other sources and subsection (2) includes in such income various items, one of which is "dividends". Dividend on shares is thus income chargeable under the head "Income from other

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

gain from sale of TDR as exempt\nfrom tax u/s.96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and\nTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement\nAct, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act).\n2. The brief facts of the case is that during the course of assessment\nproceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the Respondent's\ncapital account had increased by Rs.6

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

x) Smt. Jami Nirmala vs. PCIT, 437 ITR 573 (Orissa). (xi) Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak vs. Union of India, 439 ITR 193 (Orissa). (xii) CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited, 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta). (xiii) PCIT vs. M/s. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd., (8) TMI 1131 (Calcutta). (xiv) PCIT vs. Smt. Daksha Jain, (8) TMI 474 (Rajasthan). (xv) Dr. A. V. Sreekumar

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

x) S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (TM) xi) D.A. Patel vs. DCIT [(1999) (3) Tmi 639 – ITAT Mumbai] 31. Referring to the copy of the assessment order she drew the attention of the Bench to the profit rate for the various assessment years which are as under

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

x) S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (TM) xi) D.A. Patel vs. DCIT [(1999) (3) Tmi 639 – ITAT Mumbai] 31. Referring to the copy of the assessment order she drew the attention of the Bench to the profit rate for the various assessment years which are as under

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

x) S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (TM) xi) D.A. Patel vs. DCIT [(1999) (3) Tmi 639 – ITAT Mumbai] 31. Referring to the copy of the assessment order she drew the attention of the Bench to the profit rate for the various assessment years which are as under

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

x) S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (TM) xi) D.A. Patel vs. DCIT [(1999) (3) Tmi 639 – ITAT Mumbai] 31. Referring to the copy of the assessment order she drew the attention of the Bench to the profit rate for the various assessment years which are as under

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

x) S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (TM) xi) D.A. Patel vs. DCIT [(1999) (3) Tmi 639 – ITAT Mumbai] 31. Referring to the copy of the assessment order she drew the attention of the Bench to the profit rate for the various assessment years which are as under