INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED vs. LATUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

iii) Expenses Incurred for\nEarning Exempt Income. Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) were issued and duly served upon the\nassessee calling for certain details/documents/information in respect of\nthe above issues. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) while examining the\nveracity of deduction of “any other amount allowable as deduction

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation. Please refer submissions in Annexure 'A' to Assessment Year 2016-17 and 2017-18. (B) The adjustment made is outside the scope of the specific items of adjustments permitted u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. has (ii) The reasons given in the adjustments made under section 143(1)(a) made under the Act can neither

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation. Please refer submissions in Annexure 'A' to Assessment Year 2016-17 and 2017-18. (B) The adjustment made is outside the scope of the specific items of adjustments permitted u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. has (ii) The reasons given in the adjustments made under section 143(1)(a) made under the Act can neither

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation. Please refer submissions in Annexure 'A' to Assessment Year 2016-17 and 2017-18. (B) The adjustment made is outside the scope of the specific items of adjustments permitted u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. has (ii) The reasons given in the adjustments made under section 143(1)(a) made under the Act can neither

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation. Please refer submissions in Annexure 'A' to Assessment Year 2016-17 and 2017-18. (B) The adjustment made is outside the scope of the specific items of adjustments permitted u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. has (ii) The reasons given in the adjustments made under section 143(1)(a) made under the Act can neither

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation. Please refer submissions in Annexure 'A' to Assessment Year 2016-17 and 2017-18. (B) The adjustment made is outside the scope of the specific items of adjustments permitted u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. has (ii) The reasons given in the adjustments made under section 143(1)(a) made under the Act can neither

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD6(1), PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the\nassessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA\nNo

36 (1) (va) of the Act against the respective amounts due for\npayment in the next month of May 2015, as these payments\ndisallowed for the month of April 2015 have been made before the\ndue dates of payment falling in the month of May 2015. Similarly,\nthe respective payments made after the due dates in May 2015 and\ndisallowed

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

iii) supplying goods, or providing services, from one unit to another unit or developer, in the same or different Special Economic Zone." Therefore, the legislative history of provisions of section 10AA would clearly reveal that the provisions of section 10AA have been inserted in the Income Tax Act in order to give effect to the provisions of Special Economic Zone

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

iii. Nizamabad District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., 2014 (12) TMI 562 – ITAT, Hyderabad; iv. Vijaya Bank Vs. JCIT in ITA No. 915/Bang/2017 for assessment year 2012-13 decided on 05-01-2018. 6.2 On the other hand ld. DR vehemently defended the action of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in restricting the disallowance u/s. 36(1)(viii) to the extent

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

iii. Nizamabad District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., 2014 (12) TMI 562 – ITAT, Hyderabad; iv. Vijaya Bank Vs. JCIT in ITA No. 915/Bang/2017 for assessment year 2012-13 decided on 05-01-2018. 6.2 On the other hand ld. DR vehemently defended the action of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in restricting the disallowance u/s. 36(1)(viii) to the extent

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

iii. Nizamabad District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., 2014 (12) TMI 562 – ITAT, Hyderabad; iv. Vijaya Bank Vs. JCIT in ITA No. 915/Bang/2017 for assessment year 2012-13 decided on 05-01-2018. 6.2 On the other hand ld. DR vehemently defended the action of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in restricting the disallowance u/s. 36(1)(viii) to the extent

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

iii. Nizamabad District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., 2014 (12) TMI 562 – ITAT, Hyderabad; iv. Vijaya Bank Vs. JCIT in ITA No. 915/Bang/2017 for assessment year 2012-13 decided on 05-01-2018. 6.2 On the other hand ld. DR vehemently defended the action of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in restricting the disallowance u/s. 36(1)(viii) to the extent

ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the\nassessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA\nNo

36 (1) (va) of the Act against the respective amounts due for\npayment in the next month of May 2015, as these payments\ndisallowed for the month of April 2015 have been made before the\ndue dates of payment falling in the month of May 2015. Similarly,\nthe respective payments made after the due dates in May 2015 and\ndisallowed

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(1), PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the\nassessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA\nNo

36 (1) (va) of the Act against the respective amounts due for\npayment in the next month of May 2015, as these payments\ndisallowed for the month of April 2015 have been made before the\ndue dates of payment falling in the month of May 2015. Similarly,\nthe respective payments made after the due dates in May 2015 and\ndisallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

iii) Avinash R. Mahamuni vs. ITO vide ITA No.1582/PUN/2018 order dated 30.04.2019 for assessment year 2011-12 iv) Abhijit Despande vs. DCIT vide ITA No 492/PUN/2018 order dated 03.05.2019 for assessment year 2010-11 17. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that when objections were rejected on 07.03.2022 and the re-assessment order was passed

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD.,JALGAON vs. DY. CIT, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the judicial view on the subject, in my opinion there was a justification for the disallowance out of interest paid, considering large interest free deposits, given to the owners of the flats. In the facts and circumstances

POONA BOTTLING COMPNAY PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1484/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 36(1)(iii) a/the Act. The deduction claimed by the assessee in previous assessment years was due to the depreciation

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

36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs. 7,44,78,911/- in this year under consideration. Ground No. 1 raised by the appellant is accordingly allowed.” 4. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. The Ld. Departmental representative (DR) strongly relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. DR tried to distinguish the present

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

36(1)(va) for late payment of employee contribution to PF Fund (ii) Variation of Computation of tax liability The assessee opted for new tax regime u/s115BAA of Income-tax Act, 1961 In the Clause 8(a) of Tax Audit Report it has been reported that the appellant opted for the new tax regime u/s 115BAA of Income