TECHNOFORCE SOLUTIONS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technoforce Solutions (I) Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. Private Limited, D-33/35, Midc Industrial Area, Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Aabct5257C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dilip Bapat & Shri Milind Modak Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 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 16.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Has Erred In Not Entertaining The Claim Of The Appellant For Deduction Of Service Tax Of Rs 40,82,852 Under Section 37 Of The Income Tax Act On The Ground That The Said Claim Was Not Made In The Return Of Income.

depreciation without such reduction. The CBDT vide Circular No.14/1995 had clarified that while computing the taxable income of an assessee should be computed in accordance with the provisions of law, even a fresh claim made during the course of assessment proceedings in the absence of any statutory bar should be considered by the Assessing Officer. The Hon‟ble High Court

D.Y. PATIL EDUCATION SOCIETY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2016 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: N.A. D.Y.Patil Education Society, V The Commissioner Of 2126, „E‟ Tarabai Park, S Income Tax(Central), Kolhapur – 416003. Pune. Pan: Aaatd8919M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta, Dharmesh Shah & S R Kabra – Cas Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central), Pune Under Section 12Aa R.W.S 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.02.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(Central) In Deciding The Issue Of Registration Of The Education Society Under 5. 12Aa Of The Act Vide His Order Dt. 24-02-2016 Erred In

section 12AA r.w.s 254 of the Act, to give effect to the order of the ITAT. Ld.Pr.CIT, Central, Pune again rejected 9 ITA No.649/PUN/2016 [A] Assessee‟s application for registration u/s.12A of the Act. The reasons given by ld.Pr.CIT for rejection are as under : i. Collection of Capitation Fee. ii. Use of the funds for the purpose of Trustee

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

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

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

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

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

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

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

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

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

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

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

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned thereafter in this section and in section 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year. Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant 9 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. assessment

SMT. SUNITA G. DESAI,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, RATNAGIRI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2761/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt.Sunitag.Desai, The Income Tax Officer, Master Plaza, Jakadevi, Vs Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Khalgaon, Ratnagiri. Pan: Abopd 2868 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur Dated 01.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Ito, Ward-1, Ratnagiri (Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao) In Assessing Total Income Of Appellant At Rs, 50,34,254/- Instead Of Returned Income Of Rs. 4,05,200/-. 2. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Additionof Rs.33,79,054/- Made By The Learned Ao U/S 69C Of The Ita, 1961 For The Bogus Purchases From M/S. Adijin Enterprises & M/S. Hiten Enterprises; Without Appreciating That, No Any Enquiries Were Carried Out By The L-T Authorities In This Regard. 3. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur & The Learned Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That, The Said Bogus Purchases Of Rs. 33,79,054/- Were, Intact, Capitalized To Plant & Machinery & Depreciation Of Only Rs. 5,06,958/- (I.E. 15% Of Rs. 33,79,054/-) Was Claimed As A Deduction By Appellant During Ay 2009-10. The Learned

254/- instead of returned income of Rs. 4,05,200/-. 2. The learned CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur erred in law and on facts in sustaining the additionof Rs.33,79,054/- made by the learned AO u/s 69C of the ITA, 1961 for the bogus purchases from M/s. Adijin Enterprises and M/s. Hiten Enterprises; without appreciating that, no any enquiries were

M/S. ADLER MEDIEQUIP PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, PUNE

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

depreciation on non-compete fees as per the provisions of section 32 of the Act. Set off of brought forward losses 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in not setting off carry forward losses of earlier year against the assessed income. Charge of Interest 6. On the facts

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3),, PUNE vs. M/S. CHAUDHARY ATTARSINGH YADAV MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am

depreciation made by the AO. 3. Whether on the fact of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was correct in allowing relief to the assessee on the basis of order u/s 254 of the Act dt. 22-12-2015 passed by the AO, which apparently was not a valid order, as no appeal was decided

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

section 37(1).” We also find that the AO for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 pursuant to the remand made by the ITAT accepted vide order dated 26.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 had accepted the position that the purpose of foreign visits of the employees is only for the purpose of to take decision whether

GAJANAN MAHARAJ URBAN CO-OP BANK ,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALNA CIRCLE,, JALNA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”]. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action ITA No.1567/PUN/2018 for A.Y.2013-14 Gajanan Maharaj Urban Co.Op Bank [A] rejecting its depreciation claim of Rs.8,81,812/- during

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date