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

5. Meanwhile as per the decision of the Tribunal, certificate u/s 12AA was granted to the assessee with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 on 27.06.2008. Pursuant to this registration u/s 12AA, the assessee filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 26.09.2008 claiming exemption u/s 11 and consequential refund of Rs.78,66,489/- on account of TDS credit

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

5. Meanwhile as per the decision of the Tribunal, certificate u/s 12AA was granted to the assessee with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 on 27.06.2008. Pursuant to this registration u/s 12AA, the assessee filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 26.09.2008 claiming exemption u/s 11 and consequential refund of Rs.78,66,489/- on account of TDS credit

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

5. Meanwhile as per the decision of the Tribunal, certificate u/s 12AA was granted to the assessee with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 on 27.06.2008. Pursuant to this registration u/s 12AA, the assessee filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 26.09.2008 claiming exemption u/s 11 and consequential refund of Rs.78,66,489/- on account of TDS credit

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

5. Meanwhile as per the decision of the Tribunal, certificate u/s 12AA was granted to the assessee with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 on 27.06.2008. Pursuant to this registration u/s 12AA, the assessee filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 26.09.2008 claiming exemption u/s 11 and consequential refund of Rs.78,66,489/- on account of TDS credit

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

5. Meanwhile as per the decision of the Tribunal, certificate u/s 12AA was granted to the assessee with retrospective effect from 01.04.2002 on 27.06.2008. Pursuant to this registration u/s 12AA, the assessee filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 26.09.2008 claiming exemption u/s 11 and consequential refund of Rs.78,66,489/- on account of TDS credit

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

11,350/ on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act without appreciating the fact that during the year gross income of the assessee from 'Eligible Business' of Power Generation/Renewable Energy was a loss of Rs. (-) 105,18,64,000/- and the deduction can be allowed only when there is positive income. 2. On the facts

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2),, PUNE vs. JAGTAP PATIL PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.35/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Jagtap Patil Promoters & Ward-8(2), Pune. Vs Builders, S.No.152, Pimple Gurav, Pune – 411061. Pan: Aagfj 0403 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suniol Ganoo – Ar Revenue By Shri M.M.Chate – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Pune For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)- 6, Pune Dated 04.10.2017 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2016 Passed By The Ito Ward 8(2) Pune U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Not Appreciating That It Was Only After Scrutiny Proceedings Started That The Assessee Paid The Mat. Thus By Filing Nil Return & Not Claiming Deduction U/S 80Ib(10) The Assessee Was Trying To Evade Payment Of Taxes. The Claim Of The Assessee That Filing Of Nil Return Was Clerical Error Does Not Hold Ground? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating The Ratio Laid

depreciation, taxes paid, TD5 deducted are mentioned in the return. In the columns pertaining to the deductions also, there is no mention of any figures.The appellant has also not indicated any amount under the 115JC. It is also seen that the information which is required in part A - 01 i.e. information as contained in the audit report is also mentioned

JAIHIND NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- MALEGAON, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jaihind Nagari Sahkari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Malegaon. Patsanstha Maryadit, Main Road, Raunaqabad, Malegaon, Nashik- 423203. Pan : Aaaaj8229M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 28.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Accepting The Deposits From Its Members. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18

5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including 80P shall be allowed if the assessee fails to make such a claim in the return of income. Thus, there are twin conditions, viz., first, claiming deduction u/s 80P and second, claiming such deduction in the return of income. There is no dispute on the first condition, which has been

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 PUNE, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1255/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner L B Kunjir, Of Income Tax, V S.No.52/1 Swanand Circle-7, Pune. S Building, Shree Ram Hsg Society, Kharadi, Chandanagar, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabfl9816E Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri R.Y.Balawade – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 12/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order

depreciation which required consideration under the provisions of Section 80IA(5) of I.T.Act 1961. Respectfully, following the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Pune Bench, Pune referred hereinabove the claim of the Appellant as regards to the grant of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of I.T.Act 1961 is in order and cannot be faulted with. 4.8 In view of the discussion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

section 80IA(5) of the Act the profit from eligible business for purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act need not be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business even when the same had been set off against income from non-eligible business in earlier years? 27. Since we have already decided

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

section 80IA(5) of the Act the profit from eligible business for purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act need not be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business even when the same had been set off against income from non-eligible business in earlier years? 27. Since we have already decided

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

section 80IA(5) of the Act the profit from eligible business for purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act need not be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business even when the same had been set off against income from non-eligible business in earlier years? 27. Since we have already decided

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

section 80IA(5) of the Act the profit from eligible business for purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act need not be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business even when the same had been set off against income from non-eligible business in earlier years? 27. Since we have already decided

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

section 80IA(5) of the Act the profit from eligible business for purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act need not be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business even when the same had been set off against income from non-eligible business in earlier years? 27. Since we have already decided

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST,, PUNE

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

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

5 raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue challenging the action of CIT(A) in allowing exemption u/s. 11 of the Act without appreciating the expenditure on the objects of the trust is negligible as compared to expenditure incurred on maintenance of commercial property. 8. We note that

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

11,12 & 13 of the Act. The claim of the appellant, other than the alleged unreasonable expenses, be held as allowable. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds, on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Act it further be held that

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

11. Like section 72A, dealing exclusively with the loss under the head `Profits and gains of business or profession’, section 35AB contains a specific provision dealing with amortization of expenditure of know-how in the case of amalgamation. This section provides that any expenditure incurred on acquiring any know-how for the purpose of business shall be amortized

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

11. Like section 72A, dealing exclusively with the loss under the head `Profits and gains of business or profession’, section 35AB contains a specific provision dealing with amortization of expenditure of know-how in the case of amalgamation. This section provides that any expenditure incurred on acquiring any know-how for the purpose of business shall be amortized

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE ,, PUNE vs. SHIVNAGAR VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

5%. The question which arose before the Court for determination was : whether depreciation could be denied to the assessee, as expenditure on acquisition of the assets had been treated as application of income in the year of acquisition? It was held by the Bombay High Court that section 11