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

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

56,44,960/- and the same was revised on 30.03.2015 at total income of Rs.306,36,31,370/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune (hereinafter called as the ‘Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 12.01.2017 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income

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"

x (PV) (PE) 2.5.15 Further, it is known that the working out of value in accordance with the discounted cash flow method requires following steps: Step 1: Arrive at Projected Profit after Tax Step 2: Add back non-cash costs i.e. depreciation etc Step 3: Subtract capital expenditures. Step 4: Subtract Increases in working capital. Step 5: Take into account

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

gain” assessable for that assessment year in respect of any other capital asset not being a short term capital asset”. Clause (c) of section 74(1) provides that “if the loss cannot be wholly so set off, the amount of loss not so set off shall be carried forward to the following assessment year and so on”. Sub-section (2

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

gain” assessable for that assessment year in respect of any other capital asset not being a short term capital asset”. Clause (c) of section 74(1) provides that “if the loss cannot be wholly so set off, the amount of loss not so set off shall be carried forward to the following assessment year and so on”. Sub-section (2

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, 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

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

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