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

131(1)\nof the Act on 17/11/2017 is available. Thus, it seems that some of the documents /\ninformation which was shared with the earlier Assessing Officer and the basis on\nwhich the said Assessing Officer recorded the reasons for initiation of action\nunder section 147, were not available with the Assessing Officer who disposed of\nthe objections of the assessee

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

131 Taxmann 346 8. JCIT v. Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd. (Supreme Court) [2023] 146 Taxmann 197 9. PCIT v. Raja Transports (Madras HC) [2023] 154 Taxmann 589 8. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment

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 of eligible business even when the same had been set off against income from non-eligible business in earlier years?” Brief facts of the case : 2. The assessee is a partnership firm. It filed return of income electronically for A.Y.2020-21 on 31.12.2020 declaring the total income of Rs.15,07,05,950/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

131 to 135 of the paper book. He submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not violated any of the provisions of Rule 46A and his conclusions are based on verified evidence and sound reasoning and the Revenue has failed to demonstrate any perversity or omission in appreciation of facts, therefore, the order

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

depreciation should be allowed at the rate applicable to plant and machinery. We do not see any illegality and perversity in the decision of this Tribunal in the earlier assessment year 2001-02. Even the ld. CIT(A) only followed the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2001-02 in deciding the issue. Therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. ASHISH JUGALKISHOR BHALA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act. It is seen that the assessee has adopted fair market value of Rs.540/- per share which is not acceptable. The assessee has purchased 1,19,360 shares. Details of such purchase is as under: S.No. Name of the persons from whom you Total Number Value have purchased shares of Metarolls

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 50CA in accordance with Rule 11U and Rule 11UA of IT Rules and accordingly requested to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and confirm that of the Assessing Officer. 6. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is reasoned one and does

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

131 1TR 597 (SC) applied”. (Paras 25, 29 & 30) 12. In a decision in the case of M/s D J Malpani (ITA No 1148- 1154/PN/2013 decision dated 30/10/2015) the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Pune Tribunal on the issue of fresh claim made in the returns filed u/s 153A held as under: "The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

131 1TR 597 (SC) applied”. (Paras 25, 29 & 30) 12. In a decision in the case of M/s D J Malpani (ITA No 1148- 1154/PN/2013 decision dated 30/10/2015) the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Pune Tribunal on the issue of fresh claim made in the returns filed u/s 153A held as under: "The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted

RAJDEEP BUILDCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

131 1TR 597 (SC) applied”. (Paras 25, 29 & 30) 12. In a decision in the case of M/s D J Malpani (ITA No 1148- 1154/PN/2013 decision dated 30/10/2015) the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Pune Tribunal on the issue of fresh claim made in the returns filed u/s 153A held as under: "The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not\nin appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same.\n9.\nSo far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/-\nis concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee by observing\nas under

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPN. PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

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

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

depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not in appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same. 9. So far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/- is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee by observing as under

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not in appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same. 9. So far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/- is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee by observing as under

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

Section 57(iii) does not require this purpose must be fulfilled in\norder to qualify the expenditure for deduction.\n❖ It does not say that, expenditure shall be deductible only, if\nany income is made or earned. There is in fact nothing in the\nlanguage u/s. 57(iii) to suggest that, the purpose for which the\nexpenditure is made should

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