INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

14A of the Act, disallowance of business promotion expenses. Apart from these disallowances the Assessing Officer considered even the suomoto adjustments i.e., the disallowance of ₹.4.0572 crores as made by the assessee in its revised return of income for disallowance while computing the income by the Assessing Officer. This shows the Assessing Officer in fact partly acted upon the revised

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from

CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 271(1)(C) of the Act.” 3. There is a delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay has been filed along with an affidavit sworn by the Managing Director of the assessee company containing the reasons for delay in filing 3 ITA No.347/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17 the appeal. After hearing the Ld. Representative

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condone the delay of 1918 days in filing of each of the instant appeals before this Tribunal and admit these appeals for adjudication. 3 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 3. From perusal of the grounds of appeal, we notice that common grievance of the assessees is against the levy of penalty u/s.271

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condone the delay of 1918 days in filing of each of the instant appeals before this Tribunal and admit these appeals for adjudication. 3 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 3. From perusal of the grounds of appeal, we notice that common grievance of the assessees is against the levy of penalty u/s.271

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condone the delay of 1918 days in filing of each of the instant appeals before this Tribunal and admit these appeals for adjudication. 3 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 3. From perusal of the grounds of appeal, we notice that common grievance of the assessees is against the levy of penalty u/s.271

PARAG MILK FOODS PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1), , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

delay in assessee‟s appeals is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. ITA No. 756 & 757/PUN/2019 (Assessee) 3. That, on perusal of the grounds of appeals, the first issue emerges from ground No.1 is with regard to disallowance u/sec. 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii). The other issue is with regard to direction of the ld.CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE vs. PARAG MILK FOODS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

delay in assessee‟s appeals is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. ITA No. 756 & 757/PUN/2019 (Assessee) 3. That, on perusal of the grounds of appeals, the first issue emerges from ground No.1 is with regard to disallowance u/sec. 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii). The other issue is with regard to direction of the ld.CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4, , PUNE vs. PARAG MILK FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

delay in assessee‟s appeals is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. ITA No. 756 & 757/PUN/2019 (Assessee) 3. That, on perusal of the grounds of appeals, the first issue emerges from ground No.1 is with regard to disallowance u/sec. 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii). The other issue is with regard to direction of the ld.CIT

PARAG MILK FOODS PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1), , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

delay in assessee‟s appeals is condoned and the matter is heard on merits. ITA No. 756 & 757/PUN/2019 (Assessee) 3. That, on perusal of the grounds of appeals, the first issue emerges from ground No.1 is with regard to disallowance u/sec. 14A r.w.r.8D(2)(iii). The other issue is with regard to direction of the ld.CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

Delay of 32 days in filing of these appeals stands condoned since falling under Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. ITA Nos.42 & 43/PUN/2021 for A.Y’s: 2015-16 & 16-17 DCIT Vs. M/s.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (R) 3. The Revenue’s former appeal ITA No.42/PUN/2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16 raises the following substantive grounds: “1. The order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

Delay of 32 days in filing of these appeals stands condoned since falling under Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. ITA Nos.42 & 43/PUN/2021 for A.Y’s: 2015-16 & 16-17 DCIT Vs. M/s.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (R) 3. The Revenue’s former appeal ITA No.42/PUN/2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16 raises the following substantive grounds: “1. The order

SILVER OAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT-6, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the activity of construction. It filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.44,60,670/-. The return

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

delay of 119 days in filing the cross objections is condoned in the larger interest of justice. 12. This leaves us with the Revenue’s third substantive grievance in ITA No.986/PUN/2018 seeking to revive section 36(1)(va) disallowance of Rs.19,42,513/- for the reason that the said employees contribution to Provident Fund ought to have been paid/credited before