DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED , AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

revised return of income on 31.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.1,20,54,68,920/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs.122,32,40,620/- by making disallowance of Rs.1,05,69,000/- u/s 2 14A r.w.s. 8D of the IT Rules. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed an order

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

revision by the Ld. PCIT is based on the internal audit objections for which a reply was also submitted by the assessee. He submitted that the reply filed to the audit objections has to be considered as part and parcel of record as per clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 263 and merely on basis of audit objection, proceedings

M/S. KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT - 4, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

u/s 263 of the Act has observed as under: “10. For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. In fact, if the Principal Commissioner of Income

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

u/s 142, there is no specific question. 5.3 Thus, it can be seen that the AO had not asked any question regarding the Loss claimed by the assessee. The Assessee has shown the Loss as under in the Return of Income : 36 Rates and taxes, paid or payable to Government or any local body (Excluding taxes o income) I Union

MAHANAGAR REALTY,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

revision of order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act as the order u/s 143(3) is passed after making due enquiries and application of mind. Hence, the order u/s 143(3) of the act is neither error nor is it prejudicial to the Interest of revenue.” 6 6. It was accordingly argued that the 263 proceedings may be dropped

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

263 in the case of CIT, Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (85 taxmann.com 10) (Date of order 31.07.2017) holding that, where AO allowed claim of deduction u/s 80HHC without examining said claim with reference to unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance as referred to in sections 32 and 32A respectively, Commissioner was justified in invoking revision

BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

Depreciation Claim v. Default in TDS vi. Default in TDS & Disallowance for such Default vii. Refund Claim viii. Business Loss ix. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment x. Disallowance u/s 40A(7) (Gratuity provision) xi. Expenses incurred for Earning Exempt Income xii. Excess Contribution to Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund xiii. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xiv. Business Expenses

GRANT MEDICAL FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

depreciation of Rs.33,00,69,972/-. However, since after making the above additions and after allowing the accumulation u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act to the extent of 15% of gross receipts at Rs.73,63,65,615/-, the net surplus was Nil for which the Assessing Officer determined the taxable income at Nil. 3. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(Exemption

ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

263 of the Act\nbecome nullity.\n22.\nWe find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the\nassessee. We find an identical issue had come up before the Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court in the case of Sejal Jewellery & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.\n(supra). In that case a search action was carried

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

revision proceedings before the Ld. PCIT : 5 ITA No.945/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 3.7 Before the Ld. PCIT, challenging the validity of proceeding u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee submitted that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the assessee’s husband, Mr. Sandeep Satav has been substantiated by production of above details/documents and hence the assessment order is neither erroneous

MAHATMA PHULE GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. PCIT-1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

depreciation and investment allowance as referred to in sections 32 and 32A respectively, the Commissioner was justified in invoking revision under section 263 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s

SRL CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,JALNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.847/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Srl Construction Pvt. Ltd., V The Acit, 197, Khasgaon, Jafrabad, S Central Circle-2, Jalna – 444203. Aurangabad. Pan: Aaqcs7227L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateekjha – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)-Nagpur, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 08.03.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. A) On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & In Law, Honorable Pr. Cit (Central), Nagpur Has Erred In Not Considering The Submission Made By The Appellant In Fair And

depreciation on such assets. The reconciliation of the openig and closing balances of the tangible assets was reconciled by submitting the statement even though the honorable Pr. CIT (Central) Nagpur has considered the case against the appellant. In view of the ground taken above, the honorable Pr. CIT (Central), Nagpur has erred in treating the order passed by the assessing

M/S KUTE SONS DAIRYS LTD.,SATARA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.410/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kute Sons Dairys Ltd., Vs. Pcit-3, Pune. S.No.406/407, At Nimbhore, Post Surwadi, Taluka Phaltan, Satara- 415523. Pan : Aabck0391C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri N. K. Rander Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Pune (‘The Pcit’) Dated 30.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Initiating Proceedings U/S.263 & Passing The Order Without Proper Jurisdiction. Appellant Prays To Declare Proceedings & Order Bad In Law.

depreciation of Rs.1,32,91,038/- without verifying whether the activities of the assessee company amounts to manufacture or not in view of the decision of the ITAT, Special Bench, Pune in the case of B. G. Chitale vs. DCIT, 115 ITD 97 and, accordingly, issued a show-cause notice u/s 263 of the Act. In response to the said

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 was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

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 was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

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 was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

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 was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

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 was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved