THE DEOLA MERCHANTS CO-OP. BANK LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010-11 is allowed and for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1560 & 1561/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 The Deola Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Bhagyodaya, At Post – Deola, Tal-Deola, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Nashik – 423102 …. Pan: Aaaat4787E Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 1, Nashik

delay of 14 days in filing the appeals late before the Tribunal is condoned. 4. The assessee in ITA No.1560/PUN/2016, relating to assessment year 2010-11 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 1. Without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred

M/S LOKMANGAL MAULI INDUSTRIES LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE -1, , SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 36(1 )(va) of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f 01/04/2021 and hence not applicable to the Assessment year 2017- 18. The appellant hereby prays that the disallowance of Rs. 14,83,912/- may please be deleted. 3. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add, alter, amend or delete any ground/s of appeal.” 2. Admittedly

KOHINOOR DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

36(1)(va) of the employees’ contribution towards PF Rs. 6,43,910/- though the same were paid before the due date for filing of return. 2. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal, if required.” 2. The facts and circumstances and the issues involved in both these appeals

KOHINOOR DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

36(1)(va) of the employees’ contribution towards PF Rs. 6,43,910/- though the same were paid before the due date for filing of return. 2. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal, if required.” 2. The facts and circumstances and the issues involved in both these appeals

AJIT ABDULMAJID MAHAT,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Roao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

36(1)(va) as the contribution has been deposited with the respective authority after the due date as provided under the respective law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and inlaw the ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the contention of the appellant that such action of the DCIT does not fall within theambit

DATWYLER PHARMA PACKAGING I P LTD,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits 3. The only issue involved in this appeal is the disallowance of employees‟ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessee that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has been held that if the employees‟ contribution

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

1) of the Act regarding delay in depositing employee’s contribution to Provident Fund account and claim of carry forward of business loss. Further, the ld. DR argued that the delay may be condoned and dispose off the appeal by confirming the order of NFAC, Delhi. Therefore, the issues covered against the assessee, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

M/S SARGAM RETAILS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CPC , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee's contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

36(1)(va) of Rs. 29,602 without assigning any reasons whatsoever. 6. The learned ADIT-CPC has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been reported as paid within the due date specified under the respective ESIC Act under Clause 20(b) of the Tax Audit Report filed by the Appellant. Disallowance of unpaid amounts

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

36(1)(va) of Rs. 29,602 without assigning any reasons whatsoever. 6. The learned ADIT-CPC has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been reported as paid within the due date specified under the respective ESIC Act under Clause 20(b) of the Tax Audit Report filed by the Appellant. Disallowance of unpaid amounts

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act, disallowance u/s. 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

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 14.03.2024 for ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] Assessment Year 2021-22. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming tax of appellant at Rs. 2,73,95,728/as against refund of Rs. 29,71,648/- merely due to delay

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

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

B. C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

condone the delay in A.Y: 2013-14 to 2016-17 B.C. Biyani Projects P.Ltd., late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute