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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

M/S GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

120; (b) record shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before

VIVEK NATHURAM GAVHANE,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

120; (b) record shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45.\nFurther, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45.\nFurther, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45.\nFurther, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

120/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction of section 56(2)(viib) of ITA, 1961 was as an anti-abusive provision and therefore, when all investors are found to be genuine and bonafide investors, having proper trail of funds, and ensuring all tax compliances, etc., Ld. AO should not have made said addition. 6. On the facts

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

120/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction of section 56(2)(viib) of ITA, 1961 was as an anti-abusive provision and therefore, when all investors are found to be genuine and bonafide investors, having proper trail of funds, and ensuring all tax compliances, etc., Ld. AO should not have made said addition. 6. On the facts

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

120/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction of section 56(2)(viib) of ITA, 1961 was as an anti-abusive provision and therefore, when all investors are found to be genuine and bonafide investors, having proper trail of funds, and ensuring all tax compliances, etc., Ld. AO should not have made said addition. 6. On the facts

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

120/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction of section 56(2)(viib) of ITA, 1961 was as an anti-abusive provision and therefore, when all investors are found to be genuine and bonafide investors, having proper trail of funds, and ensuring all tax compliances, etc., Ld. AO should not have made said addition. 6. On the facts

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

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

4 10) The addition made by learned A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.1,18,82,797/- on account of credit in capital account of partner Shri Harleensingh Sethi u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 11) The addition made by learned A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.22,66,14,480/- on account

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

4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the ration laid down by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shelcon Properties Pvt. Ltd. reported in 370 ITR 305, wherein it has been clearly held that benefit can only be availed

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

B. Road, Mumbai - 400018. PAN: AAACN2703L Whereas I have reason to believe that your income in respect of which you are assessable chargeable to tax for the A. Y. 2010-2011 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I, therefore, propose to assess for the said assessment year and I hereby require

SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, LATUR,LATUR vs. ACIT (EXMP.) CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

120 ITR 0506 (Mad)\nBrief facts of the case are as under:\na) In this case, the assessee had filed its return of income in a wrong\nform. Subsequently, as required by the Income-tax Officer, the\nassessee filed the return in the correct form.\nb) On the completion of the assessment, the Income-tax Officer\ncharged interest under Section