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

254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2010 wherein the Tribunal at para 3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit

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

254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2010 wherein the Tribunal at para 3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit

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

254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2010 wherein the Tribunal at para 3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit

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

254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2010 wherein the Tribunal at para 3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit

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

254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2010 wherein the Tribunal at para 3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

3) of section 139. 55. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalva Investments Ltd. in ITA No.822/2005, judgment dated 07.08.2020 in a case involving the identical facts held that in the return of income when the assessee had claimed erroneous claim for a lesser amount of loss, which was corrected during the course

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

3) of section 139. 55. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalva Investments Ltd. in ITA No.822/2005, judgment dated 07.08.2020 in a case involving the identical facts held that in the return of income when the assessee had claimed erroneous claim for a lesser amount of loss, which was corrected during the course

ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUNGNALAYA & RESEARCH CENTER,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

254 of the Act, the assessee society was issued a certificate of registration w.e.f. 30/11/2003. Thus, this certificate of 12A registration subject to condition specified therein enabled the assessee society for the claim of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act from AY 2004-05(Pg328-330/PB-1). 2.5 While assessing income in very first

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, PUNE, PUNE

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

depreciation\nof Rs.17,67,439/-, capital expenditure being application of Rs.\n23,02,72,512/- and deficit brought forward of Rs.58,64,46,708/- and\nclaimed total of these of Rs.97,28,31,592/- as deduction and arrived at\ntotal income of Rs. NIL in view of exemption u/s 11 claiming application of\nincome of more than 85% and working

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

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

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.

3 rejected the claim for deduction of service tax paid placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No.1040

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

3 were not pressed by the Assessee. 4. Ld.AR submitted that Ld.Pr.CIT, Central, Pune vide order dated 24.02.2016 passed u/s.12AA r.w.s 254 has exceeded the jurisdiction. Ld.AR submitted that while giving effect to the ITAT Order, ld.Pr.CIT had to stick to the issues mentioned by the ITAT. ITAT in its order had specifically mentioned that receipt of Capitation Fee cannot

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

NAGAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE ,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2555/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nagar Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Post Box No.7, Central Bank Road, Ahmednagar-414001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaaan0509L बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Ahmednagar. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.03.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Learned Acit Ahmednagar Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances In Not Allowing Claims Made During The Course Of Hearing For Exempted Income Of Dividend Of Rs. 1487135/- & Expenses Debited To P & L A/C On Account Of Depreciation On Govt. Securities Rs. 11200000/- To Be Allowed As Exempted Income As Well As Allowable Expenses & The Same Were Also Dismissed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii Pune. 2. That Your Appellant Prays That He May Be Allowed To Add, To Alter Or Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

depreciation on the Government Securities, the ld. CIT(A) had not allowed the claims on the ground that the issues had not arisen out of the assessment order, the claims were not made in the original return of income placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India

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

SHRI VITTHAL SAHAKARI SAKHAR K LTD..,SOLAPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.580/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Vitthal Vs Dcit, Sahakarisakharkarakhana Circle-1, Solapur. Limited, At Gursale Post Gursale, Tal Pandarpur District, Solapur – 413304. Pan: Aaaas3892H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hanmant D Dhavle – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 17.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Shri Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Ltd., [A]

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Shri Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Ltd., [A] “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law of the learned NFAC – Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi, has erred in disallowing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2043/Pun/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The A.C.I.T., Sharada Erectors Pvt. Ltd. Circle-6, Vs 38, Vijayanagar Colony, Pune Pune-411030. Pan No. Aaccs 6028 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Revenue By Ms. Divya Bajpai (Cit-Dr) Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak Date Of Hearing 22/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Pune, Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-4/Dcit, Circle-6, Pune/85/2016-17/152 Dated 27/03/2017 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 7,44,78,911/- U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, When The Funds Were Raised By Interest Bearing Loan Which Was Advanced To Sister Concern For Non Business Purpose. 2. For This An Such Other Reasons As May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, The Order Of The Cit(A) May Be Vacated & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Alter Or Delete Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal.” 2. The Assessee Is A Builder-Developer. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, In The Assessment Order, It Is Claimed That The Assessee Has Used Interest Bearing Funds For Giving Advances To Its Sister Concerns & Related Entities, Therefore, The A.O. Opined That The Funds Have Been Used For Non-Business Purposes. The Assessee Submitted Before The A.O. During The Assessment Proceedings That They Have

254) ITR 377] wherein it was held that once it is established that there is nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the Board of Directors