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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

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

VINITA DEEPAK AHUJA,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 723/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019 Vinita Deepak Ahuja 1657-58, Lohiya Compound, Gandhi Nagar, Kolhapur. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan : Alnps6479B बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cpc, Bengaluru. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 10/12/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Arisen From An Order Of Intimation Dt. 29/04/2019 U/S 143(1) From The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Cpc, Bengaluru [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2018-19. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 6

section 40A(3) of the Act. 3. The grounds raised for adjudication are; 1. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in Law the Ld. CIT(A)-11, Pune erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal even through thee was reasonable cause in delayed filing of appeal. 2. On the facts and circumstances

SHREE SHANKAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SOALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.317/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shree Shankar Sahakari Sakhar The Asst.Cit, Circle-1, Karkhan Ltd., Vs Solapur. Sadashivnagar, Tal-Malshiras, Dist.Solapur – 413111. Pan: Aaaas 3735 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prasanna Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune For The A.Y. 2013-14 Dated 02.01.2018, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[In Short “The Act”]. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: (A) Disallowance Out Of Sugarcane Purchases: 1. From 2011 To 2016 Appellant Suffered Cash Losses Of Rs 87.58 Crores Eroding Its Net Worth Many Times Over; Farmers Were Not Paid Their Frp For Cane Supplied In 2014-15 & 2015-16; Sugar Factory Could Start Or Operate In 2016-17; Workers Were Not Paid Salaries For 27 Months & Stopped Attending Office; State Govt, Appointed An Administrator On 7/12/2016 Whose Office Was Located At Solapur Over 100 Kms From Appellant’S Factory; And

9. Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the same AO had allowed comparable cane prices paid by private sector sugar mills as deductions in their assessments but cane price in excess of FRP was disallowed in the hands of co-operative sugar factories. B) Concession in Sugar Sales to Members: 1. CIT(A) erred in holding that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE vs. SPICER INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 177 days are condoned. 3. The Revenue raised as many as 6 grounds amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the adjustment of Rs.14,71,41,219/- made by the AO/TPO on account of management services fees in the facts and circumstances of the case

GARVE MOTORS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.776/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Garve Motors Pvt. Ltd., S.No.136/1A 46, B P Road, Pune – 411016 . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aadcg4391A बनाम / V/S. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mrs. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Extant Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 06/12/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Climbed Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 15/03/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2013-14. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 12

40a(ia) and disallowance of repairs & maintenance holding as Capex. 4.2 The assessee company challenged the action of Ld. AO contesting all the addition before the first appellate authority [for short “FAA”], wherein the Ld. CIT(A) finding force in assessee’s contention granted part relief as regards to depreciation on demo car following precedents laid in assessee

VAIDYANATH KEDESHWAR SAKHAR UDYOG,,BEED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE,, AHMEDNAGAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

DANA INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2 Dana India Private Limited A. TRANSFER PRICING ADDITION IN `MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES’ 3. The first issue raised in this appeal is against the transfer pricing addition of Rs.22,60,76,000/- made by the AO in the ‘Manufacturing activities’. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

40A (2) of the Act. The assessee i.e NLT had received services from TACL in respect of which payment had been made as per documentary evidence on record and thus, there was no warrant for disallowance paid to TACL by the assessee when the payment was adjudged on the principle of commercial expediency when viewed from the point of view

MAYURI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.10,39,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(3) of the Income

SAHYADRI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SATARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 10 days are condoned. 3. The assessee in the present appeals is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of white sugar. The issues raised in this appeals are : i. Disallowance of Cane Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure. ii. Addition on account of sale of sugar at concessional rate to the canegrowers/Farmers by the assessee. iii. Excess cane

SAHYADRI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SATARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 10 days are condoned. 3. The assessee in the present appeals is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of white sugar. The issues raised in this appeals are : i. Disallowance of Cane Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure. ii. Addition on account of sale of sugar at concessional rate to the canegrowers/Farmers by the assessee. iii. Excess cane

SAHYADRI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4,, SATARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 10 days are condoned. 3. The assessee in the present appeals is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of white sugar. The issues raised in this appeals are : i. Disallowance of Cane Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure. ii. Addition on account of sale of sugar at concessional rate to the canegrowers/Farmers by the assessee. iii. Excess cane

SAHAKAR SHIROMANI VASANTRAO KALE SSK LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (5),, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 181 days are condoned. 3. The assessee in the present appeal is engaged in the business of manufacturing of while crystal sugar, molasses and baggasse as by- products, distillery and dealer in petroleum products. The issues raised in this appeal are : i. Disallowance of Excess cane price. ii. Disallowance of sale of sugar at concessional rate

R G DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 7,PUNE, PUNE

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

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

delay in filing of both the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a firm engaged in business of construction of commercial and residential buildings. It filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income Rs.1,60,62,150/-. The Assessing Officer completed