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

M/S. SHIVAJI YASHWANT KARPE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Penalty – Limbs related issue 4. Briefly stated relevant facts of the assessee include that the assessee is engaged in Medical profession and also derives income from Agriculture. During the impugned assessment year, assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,20,000/-. As per the AIR information

RAJENDRA MITHAILAL AGARWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

279 r.w.s. 276C for the above years, I came to know that matters of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) have been decided against me by CIT(A). That I thereafter applied for certified copy of the Order on 4. 13.11.2017 which were provided to me. Thereafter I sought proper advise and have filed appeal before Hon Tribunal. 5. That

RAJENDRA MITHAILAL AGARWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

279 r.w.s. 276C for the above years, I came to know that matters of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) have been decided against me by CIT(A). That I thereafter applied for certified copy of the Order on 4. 13.11.2017 which were provided to me. Thereafter I sought proper advise and have filed appeal before Hon Tribunal. 5. That

RAJENDRA MITHAILAL AGARWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

279 r.w.s. 276C for the above years, I came to know that matters of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) have been decided against me by CIT(A). That I thereafter applied for certified copy of the Order on 4. 13.11.2017 which were provided to me. Thereafter I sought proper advise and have filed appeal before Hon Tribunal. 5. That

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

delay in filing of the instant appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of land development and real estate broking. He filed his return of income on 28.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.8,08,880/-. A search action

MAHAVIR ADINATH SALVE,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, SOLAPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.441/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Mahavir Adinath Salve, The Ito, Ward-1(1), Solapur. House No.930, Nagane Plot Vs Paranda Road, Barshi, . Solapur – 413411. Pan: Arxps 5761 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V L Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 15.11.2018 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Cir- 1/0804/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

279 CTR 384 for the proposition that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) has retrospective effect. 5. It has been held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) has retrospective effect by the Delhi High Court in the Ansal Landmark Township cited supra while there is contrary decision of the Kerala High Court in case