MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. He filed his return of income for AY 2010-11 on 16.10.2010 2 ITA No.759/PUN/2024, AY 2010-11 declaring total income of Rs.7,12,450/-. Subsequently, he revised his return by filing revised return

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

RAJENDRA RAMESHLAL GUGALE,PUNE vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

263 (1), are reproduced here under: Explanation 2. - For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, - a. the order is passed

M/S. CHHEDA ELECTRICALS AND ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee in its appeal is against restricting the deduction u/s.80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) on the profits of Roorkee undertaking to Rs.3,11,49,011/- instead of profits from eligible undertaking at Rs.7

M/S. CHHEDA ELECTRICALS AND ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The only issue raised by the assessee in its appeal is against restricting the deduction u/s.80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) on the profits of Roorkee undertaking to Rs.3,11,49,011/- instead of profits from eligible undertaking at Rs.7

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

263 of the Act on 27.12.2007 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.583.06 crores. Against the said order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 25.01.2008. In the meantime the assessee had filed an application for registration under section 12AA before CIT-II, Thane on 10.02.2006, which was rejected by the Ld. CIT vide

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

263 of the Act on 27.12.2007 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.583.06 crores. Against the said order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 25.01.2008. In the meantime the assessee had filed an application for registration under section 12AA before CIT-II, Thane on 10.02.2006, which was rejected by the Ld. CIT vide

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

263 of the Act on 27.12.2007 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.583.06 crores. Against the said order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 25.01.2008. In the meantime the assessee had filed an application for registration under section 12AA before CIT-II, Thane on 10.02.2006, which was rejected by the Ld. CIT vide

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

263 of the Act on 27.12.2007 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.583.06 crores. Against the said order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 25.01.2008. In the meantime the assessee had filed an application for registration under section 12AA before CIT-II, Thane on 10.02.2006, which was rejected by the Ld. CIT vide

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

263 of the Act on 27.12.2007 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.583.06 crores. Against the said order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 25.01.2008. In the meantime the assessee had filed an application for registration under section 12AA before CIT-II, Thane on 10.02.2006, which was rejected by the Ld. CIT vide

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

263 of the Act on 27.12.2007 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.583.06 crores. Against the said order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 25.01.2008. In the meantime the assessee had filed an application for registration under section 12AA before CIT-II, Thane on 10.02.2006, which was rejected by the Ld. CIT vide

SHOBHA RAMCHANDRA CHAUDHARI,YAWAL vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 1, NASHIK

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.397/Pun/2021 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner…….. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed

RAMACHANDRA VISHNU CHAUDHARI,JALGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2, NASHIK

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.397/Pun/2021 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner…….. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed

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

delaying the process of claiming deduction under\nSection 80IA/IB of the Act. All this would indicate that Assessing\nOfficer had formed an opinion while passing the order dated 9 th\nMarch, 2005. This Court in Aroni Commercials Ltd. v/s. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income Tax 367 ITR 405 had occasion to consider\nsomewhat similar submission made by the Revenue and negatived

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

delaying the process of claiming deduction under\nSection 80IA/IB of the Act. All this would indicate that Assessing\nOfficer had formed an opinion while passing the order dated 9 th\nMarch, 2005. This Court in Aroni Commercials Ltd. v/s. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income Tax 367 ITR 405 had occasion to consider\nsomewhat similar submission made by the Revenue and negatived

DR. PRATAP PANDHIRANATH PATIL,PUNE vs. PCIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. PCIT has failed to appreciate that for invoking Section 263

SHRI UPASANI KANYAKUMARI SANSTHAN,RAHATA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

263 of the Act: “There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer; it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement

M/S. LADKAT BROTHERS SERVICE STATION,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1081/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Pro Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune erred in passing order u/s. 263 of the IT act, 1961 by disregarding appellant's contention. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Pr. Commissioner of Income