SINDHUDURG ZILLA TOURIST SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , KUDAL

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am Sl.

section 32 r.w.r. 5 appendix II table of Depreciation as provided at Sr. No. 4 of Part A-1 Building on the addition of Rs. 5,19,192 made during the financial year, for want of original bills when books of accounts are audited and details of expenditure are made available. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

SINDHUDURG ZILLA TOURIST SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, KUDAL

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am Sl.

section 32 r.w.r. 5 appendix II table of Depreciation as provided at Sr. No. 4 of Part A-1 Building on the addition of Rs. 5,19,192 made during the financial year, for want of original bills when books of accounts are audited and details of expenditure are made available. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

SINDHUDURG ZILLA TOURIST SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, KUDAL

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am Sl.

section 32 r.w.r. 5 appendix II table of Depreciation as provided at Sr. No. 4 of Part A-1 Building on the addition of Rs. 5,19,192 made during the financial year, for want of original bills when books of accounts are audited and details of expenditure are made available. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

SINDHUDURG ZILLA TOURIST SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, KUDAL

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am Sl.

section 32 r.w.r. 5 appendix II table of Depreciation as provided at Sr. No. 4 of Part A-1 Building on the addition of Rs. 5,19,192 made during the financial year, for want of original bills when books of accounts are audited and details of expenditure are made available. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

SINDHUDURG ZILLA TOURIST SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, KUDAL

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am Sl.

section 32 r.w.r. 5 appendix II table of Depreciation as provided at Sr. No. 4 of Part A-1 Building on the addition of Rs. 5,19,192 made during the financial year, for want of original bills when books of accounts are audited and details of expenditure are made available. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

COPPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation on assets, the assessee could not claim scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on the said expenditure of ₹ 2.01 crores. However, expenses incurred on purchase of fans and motor vehicles totaling ₹ 8,09,016/- were held to be allowed under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The CIT(A) further directed the revenue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation on assets, the assessee could not claim scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on the said expenditure of ₹ 2.01 crores. However, expenses incurred on purchase of fans and motor vehicles totaling ₹ 8,09,016/- were held to be allowed under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The CIT(A) further directed the revenue

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

CYZA CHEM PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 69B is squarely applicable. Accordingly, claim of set off of brought forward business loss (excluding depreciation loss) to the tune of Rs.1024521/- was disallowed and added back in the income of assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for concealment of income as the additional income was offered after detection of the same during search

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CHETAS CONTROL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1302/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Chetas Control Systems Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.1, S.No.8+9, Chetas House, Shree Sidhatek Hsg. Society, Sutarwadi, Pashan, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411021 Pan: Aaacc7437N अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Gawli प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : None घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2018

section 133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises of assessee. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings after noting the details of purchases made from Aquatech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., expenditure for construction of laboratory held as capital expenditure and after allowing 10% depreciation

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

133A is taxable u/s 69B of the Act and in view of provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction of the said amount can be allowed to the assessee in any of the asst. year. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the excess work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- declared during the course of survey

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

133A is taxable u/s 69B of the Act and in view of provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction of the said amount can be allowed to the assessee in any of the asst. year. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the excess work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- declared during the course of survey

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

133A is taxable u/s 69B of the Act and in view of provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction of the said amount can be allowed to the assessee in any of the asst. year. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the excess work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- declared during the course of survey

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

133A is taxable u/s 69B of the Act and in view of provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction of the said amount can be allowed to the assessee in any of the asst. year. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the excess work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- declared during the course of survey

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

133A is taxable u/s 69B of the Act and in view of provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction of the said amount can be allowed to the assessee in any of the asst. year. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the excess work in progress of Rs.3,11,76,525/- declared during the course of survey

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE , , SATARA vs. SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE,, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

section 68 of the Act. Since all the parameters of Genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of lenders was proved beyond doubt there was no occasion to invoke S. 68 for making addition. The addition be deleted. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C is not justified

SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

section 68 of the Act. Since all the parameters of Genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of lenders was proved beyond doubt there was no occasion to invoke S. 68 for making addition. The addition be deleted. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C is not justified

SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE ,, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

section 68 of the Act. Since all the parameters of Genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of lenders was proved beyond doubt there was no occasion to invoke S. 68 for making addition. The addition be deleted. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C is not justified