ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BHAAWANI SHANKAR GINNING FACTORY,, DHULE

In the result, both the appeal of Revenue and C

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

deemed dividend salary tax in the hands of concern. 3. The order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.” 3. On the other hand, assessee has filed C.O. and the grounds raised by the assessee reads as under : “1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Ld AO erred

NAGAR URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

deem it fit to decide the two additional issues pertaining to claim of depreciation on Govt. Securities amounting to Rs.1,12,00,000/- and dividend

LATE SHRI WALMIK RAGHUNATH NIKHADE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

depreciation on flat at Mumbai used for business purpose. 3 6 On the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained advance received against land from Shri Prashant Hire. 7 On the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-2,, NASHIK vs. SMT. CHHAYA VALMIK NIKHADE,LATE SHRI VALMIK R. NIKHADE, , NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

depreciation on flat at Mumbai used for business purpose. 3 6 On the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained advance received against land from Shri Prashant Hire. 7 On the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and interest payment to Ravi Cooperative Bank. The new claim of assessee in the returns of income on account of depreciation

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and interest payment to Ravi Cooperative Bank. The new claim of assessee in the returns of income on account of depreciation

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and interest payment to Ravi Cooperative Bank. The new claim of assessee in the returns of income on account of depreciation

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and interest payment to Ravi Cooperative Bank. The new claim of assessee in the returns of income on account of depreciation

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act, cash in hand and adhoc addition out of expenses and interest payment to Ravi Cooperative Bank. The new claim of assessee in the returns of income on account of depreciation

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. SHRI. ULHAS MALLIKARJUN PATIL,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

dividend. Apparently, there are no other receipts which would depicts complex nature of letting out to treat rental receipt as business receipt ITA No.1751/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 (A) Shri Ulhas M. Patil 5.6 The main issue is invocation of provisions of section 50 in respect of school building sold. Admittedly, no depreciation has been claim by the appellant

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tar paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tar paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tar paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tar paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN, KOLHAPUR vs. KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LIMITED, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.300/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Acit, Kolhapur Vs. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Limited, B-1, Midc, Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur – 416234 Maharashtra Pan : Aaaak0230D Appellant Respondent

depreciation in accordance with law. Needless to mention that ld. JAO shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 5 Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. 9. Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue reads as under : “3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Id.CIT

SATISH S. BANSAL,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

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

dividend income. The disallowance has been made on the income from partnership firm. The ld. AR submitted that the authorities below have erred in holding that the borrowed money was used for investment in partnership firm, where the assessee has taken loan for the specific purpose of purchase of car and acquiring property. The loan was not used

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

depreciation of Rs.27,20,59,980/- not made by the assessee in its original return as well as revised return of income ?‖ 37. Ground of appeal no.1 challenges the correctness of decision of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the performance guarantee is not an international transaction. The relevant findings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

depreciation of Rs.27,20,59,980/- not made by the assessee in its original return as well as revised return of income ?‖ 37. Ground of appeal no.1 challenges the correctness of decision of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the performance guarantee is not an international transaction. The relevant findings