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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] dated 21.09.2023 for A.Y.2020-21 emanating from assessment order dated 19.09.2022 passed under section L B Kunjir [R] 143(3) of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

BLUE STAR BUILDING MATERIAL PVT. LTD.,URAN PANVEL vs. ACIT CIRCLE PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

250 of the Act. Ld.AR submitted that in this case the only issue involved is the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for the A.Y.2016-17 has not allowed the brought forward losses and also not allowed to carry forward brought forward losses and depreciation. Ld.AR read out the relevant paragraphs of the assessment order. Ld.AR also read out section

MYVISHWA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DYCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra, Judicialmember & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.942/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Myvishwa Technologies Pvt. V The Dy.Commissioner Of Ltd., S Income Tax, Circle-7, Flat No.16, Sawali, Pan Mala, Pune. Off Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Maharashtra. Pan: Aafcm9656E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 07.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y.2018-19 Dated 24.02.2021. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

depreciation of Rs. 32,04,890/- claimed @ 12.5% (1/2 of 25%) on 'Intangible Asset' u/s. 32 of the Income Tax Act without appreciating that the cost capitalized as Intangible assets in the books was covered as "Intangible Assets" as defined explanation 3 to section 32(1) of the Act. 3.1] The Ld. AO/CIT(A) further erred in upholding that

THE MERCHANTS CO-OP BANK LTD. ( IN LIQUIDATION),DHULE vs. THE ITO, WARD- -1, DHULE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1927/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Merchants Co-Op Bank V The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., (In Liquidation), S. Ward-1, Dhule. Cs No.2111, Lane No.6, Near Old Amnalner Stand, Nagarpatti, Dhule-424001. Pan: Aaabt0123H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19, Dated 11.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Appellant Contends That The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2018-19, dated 11.03.2025 emanating from Assessment Order 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2023. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Appellant contends that the learned CIT(A), NFAC ought to have ITA No.1927/PUN/2025 [A] decided the appeal on the merits of the case. Appellant submits

INFOTEK NETALIA LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1004/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Infotek Netalia Ltd., V The Acit, Commerzone, I T Park, S Circle-11, Pune. Yerawada, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aabci2205B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr.Abhineet P For Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.07.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Deciding The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte Without Granting The Assessee Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Passing The Appellate Order Entirely Based On The Observations Of The Ld Ao & Without Appreciating That The Business Of The Assessee Company Was Closed & There Was No Employee To Handle The Income Tax Matters. Infotek Netalia Ltd., [A]

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 19.07.2023. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in deciding the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without granting the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in passing the Appellate Order entirely based

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

depreciation" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 72A.” 6. Now before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in compliance to section 115BAB(7) assessee has first time opted for this concessional rate of tax u/s.115BAB of the Act in the return filed

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

4)(iii), as an alternate is not available.\n6.7.12\nAt this juncture, it is found pertinent to bring on record that the\nmigration of the principle and method of taxation, which is being adopted in this\nappellate order, as compared to the assessment order, on the aspect of taxing the\nimpugned portion u/s 28 as against section 68 adopted

R B DIAMOND HOUSE,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-1, RANGE -25, CIRCLE -1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- JALGAON

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

250(6), requiring reasoned findings on\neach ground of appeal.\nGround No. 3: Non-response of Notices Due to medical issue\n3.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, hearing\nnotices were not responded to due to the illness of Ms. Rupal\nBagrecha who is taking care of accounting, all income tax and other\nstatutory compliances

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

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

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 14.03.2024 for ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] Assessment Year 2021-22. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming tax of appellant at Rs. 2,73,95,728/as against refund of Rs. 29,71,648/- merely due to delay

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. FLOWLINE SYSTEMS PVT LTD, NEW PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2168/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner V Flowline Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, S 401, 402, Bhoomi Landmark, Panvel. New Panvel, Dist-Raigad. Maharashtra – 410206. Pan: Aabcf1096R Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri A R Sakhalkar & Shri M.R.Dharmadhikari –Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 14.08.2024 For A.Y.2021-22 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Issued By Adit(Cpc), Bangalore. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

250(4) by making such further inquiry as he thinks fit or by directing the Assessing Officer to make such further enquiry, in his ground of appeal. Your honour/s will appreciate the fact that the law has given the power to The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit (Emphasis supplied). Thus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA vs. THE KARAD URBAN CO. OP. BANK LTD KARAD, KARAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 292 B are as under Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds. 292B. No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding. furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been fumished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid

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.

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 of the case and in law, Assessing Officer was correct in arriving at conclusion

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.

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 of the case and in law, Assessing Officer was correct in arriving at conclusion

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.

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 of the case and in law, Assessing Officer was correct in arriving at conclusion

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.

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 of the case and in law, Assessing Officer was correct in arriving at conclusion

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.

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 of the case and in law, Assessing Officer was correct in arriving at conclusion

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

250/-. Subsequently, ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings by issuance of notice u/s.274 r.w.s. u/s.270A of the Act on 16.07.2021 for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. However, as per the ld.AO assessee failed to comply to the notice of hearing and ld. AO concluding the proceedings levying penalty u/s.270A