DY. CIT, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE vs. GERA DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

355 (Bom.) 2. ACIT Vs. Mulay Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 37 taxmann.com 207 (Pune- Trib.) 3. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 102 ITD 375 (Pune-Trib.) 4. CIT Vs. Babulal K. Daga 79 taxmann.com 337 (Guj.) 5. CIT Vs. S.K. Srigiri & Bros 171 taxman 264 (Kar.) B. Regarding the second issue relating to the addition u/s.69C

GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

355 (Bom.) 2. ACIT Vs. Mulay Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 37 taxmann.com 207 (Pune- Trib.) 3. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 102 ITD 375 (Pune-Trib.) 4. CIT Vs. Babulal K. Daga 79 taxmann.com 337 (Guj.) 5. CIT Vs. S.K. Srigiri & Bros 171 taxman 264 (Kar.) B. Regarding the second issue relating to the addition u/s.69C

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

Section 144C (13) of the Act determining\ntotal income at Rs.5,66,75,610 as against INR Nil income as per\nthe return of income filed by the Appellant.\n17. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,\nthe AO has erred, in raising demand of INR 2,11,57,400 on the\nAppellant.\nSet

SARDAR DASTUR SCHOOLS TRUST,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS) HQ,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

355/- and after allowing accumulation u/s 11(1)(a) of Rs.99,48,253/-, the total income was determined at Rs.10,32,102/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 20.01.2019 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)10/ITO Exmp/72/15-16) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. MAHALAXMI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA

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

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

depreciation on luxury cars of Rs.21,36,823/- ignoring the fact that the Assessee could not furnish necessary evidence to show that the luxury cars were used wholly for business purpose to rule out personal use by directors of the company. 4. Whether, the assessee fulfills the requirement stipulated in Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 once

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. PUNE CANTONMENT SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 45Q of the 1934 Act had an overriding effect vis-a-vis income recognition principles in the Companies Act, 1956, the Assessing Officer was bound to follow the Reserve Bank of India Directions so-far as income recognition was concerned.” Before us, Revenue has not placed any contrary binding decision in its support. We therefore find no reason

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHARAD NAGARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

Section 43 C of the Income Tax Act on the Scheduled Bank. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellants/revenue placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Southern Technologies Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore reported in 2010 (2) SCC 548. However, this judgment pertains to non Banking financial companies. Uco Bank case (supra) and Mercantile Bank (supra

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

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

355/- made by the appellant. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the deduction should be restricted to the provision made in the books accounts for rural advances. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact the entire provision made has to be considered and not the provision relating to rural advances only be considered

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

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

355/- made by the appellant. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the deduction should be restricted to the provision made in the books accounts for rural advances. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact the entire provision made has to be considered and not the provision relating to rural advances only be considered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

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

355/- made by the appellant. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the deduction should be restricted to the provision made in the books accounts for rural advances. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact the entire provision made has to be considered and not the provision relating to rural advances only be considered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

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

355/- made by the appellant. 2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the deduction should be restricted to the provision made in the books accounts for rural advances. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact the entire provision made has to be considered and not the provision relating to rural advances only be considered

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

Depreciation expenses originally absorbed by the appellant in its Segmental P&L as per TP Report. Ground 6: Non-acceptance/exclusion of overseas comparable companies On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AU based on the directions of Ld. DRP has erred in notaccepting/excluding the overseas comparable companies operating in the regions where

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

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

depreciation in the value of investments should be allowed as a deduction. He submitted that the issue is no longer re- judicata, as it was decided in the assessee’s own case in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.1761/PUN/2017, order dated 11.02.2020 following the decision

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

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

depreciation in the value of investments should be allowed as a deduction. He submitted that the issue is no longer re- judicata, as it was decided in the assessee’s own case in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.1761/PUN/2017, order dated 11.02.2020 following the decision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

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

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

depreciation in the value of investments should be allowed as a deduction. He submitted that the issue is no longer re- judicata, as it was decided in the assessee’s own case in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No.1761/PUN/2017, order dated 11.02.2020 following the decision