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

vi) of the Income Tax Act scheduled bank or a non-\nscheduled bank or a cooperative bank other than primary agricultural credit\nsociety or a primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank is\neligible for deduction in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts\nmade subject to the amount of deduction computed as per the above\nprovision read

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

1) of Rs.5,50,000/-. (h) Disallowance of repairs to building, plant and machinery of Rs.1,16,36,450/-. 5 Disallowance of sales and promotion expenditure of Rs.2,90,94,637/-. (j) Disallowance of Corporate Guarantee Commission of Rs.1,20,29,793/-. (k) Disallowance of deduction u/s 10AA of Rs.47,46,67,962/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances

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

36 CO No.43/PUN/2025 February, 2025 WP3057_2019.DOC jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue the impugned notice would be required to be considered on the basis of the departmental record and on such basis, the relevant provisions of law which would govern the facts and circumstances of the case in the hands of the Assessing Officer. In the present case

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

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

depreciation, but the timing of filing the Form was a directory requirement, which was fulfilled on filing it even during the course of assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Shivanand Electronics (supra) dealt with the requirement of filing audit report for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80J, which required that the report should be filed "along

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

depreciation, but the timing of filing the Form was a directory requirement, which was fulfilled on filing it even during the course of assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Shivanand Electronics (supra) dealt with the requirement of filing audit report for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80J, which required that the report should be filed "along

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

36, the Gujarat High Court held that the Income Tax liability of a Charitable Trust has to be deducted as a necessary outgoing before the net income capable of obligation for the purpose of the Trust under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act could be ascertained. A similar view was taken by the Gujarat High Court

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

section 142 which has been filed by the assessee at Page 53, 57 of Paper Book(PB). 5.3 The ld.AO vide notice dt.15.08.2016 raised these questions before the assessee : 12 Ashish Niranjan Shah [A] “1. Detailed note on business/profession activities carried out by you during the year under consideration. 2. Please furnish copy of ITR, computation and audit report along

DEVI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2406/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 Devi Construction Company 1161/10, Devi Niwas, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411005. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aaafd8922A बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle 2, Pune द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Extant Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] All Dt. 10/08/017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Dove Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 30/03/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2012-13. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 16

depreciation to 10% as against 80% inadvertently allowed in the assessment. ITAT-Pune Page 8 of 16 Devi Construction Company ITA Nos. 2406/PUN/2017 AY: 2012-13 6.3 Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) [Ground number 5 and its counter parts] i. In the course of assessment proceeding the Ld. AO observed that, the appellant made huge investment in land

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

36 to 43] Some of the relevant aspects of these two pages are as under: 4.1 It contains jotting down of certain figures against twelve rowhouse purchasers. 4.2 Most importantly, it contains date / month, but does not refer any year. However, by applying simple logic, it becomes clear that it does not pertain to the calendar year 2018. This

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

depreciation allowance or any other allowance has been computed under the provisions of the Act. The very fact that reasons are recorded and notice u/s 148 11 was issued goes to show that the AO had applied his mind and was satisfied himself about the re-opening of the case. The IT Act envisages that the AO should only have

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. AJANTA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance of Rs.2,07,73,671/-. 6. The outcome of the Revenue’s VI sole substantive ground is also found to be no different when the assessee had made similar request of capitalization of the impugned registration fee and stamp duty charges than giving it’s consent for blanket disallowance in the relevant previous year

ANIL SHIVAJI JADHAV,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2266/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Anil Shivaji Jadhav Vs Ito, Ward 1 H.No. 325 Ghanekunt, Ratnagiri Lote, Khed, Ratnagiri- 415722 Maharashtra Pan-Acupj8781B Appellant Respondent

Section 24(b) of Rs. 36,413/- being interest on housing loan. d. Interest on cc, Interest on Loan e.15% of the total salary (Le. Wages and Bonus) debited by the appellant to his Profit and Loss Account on an adhoc basis. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation on UPS. Finally, paragraph 7 deals with computation on the basis of the opinion in paragraphs 4.5 and 6. Thus, on the issue of deduction under section 100 of the IT Act, there is absolutely no consideration and yet, the AO has allowed such deduction. This is, according to us, is a case of ho consideration' as opposed

SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, LATUR,LATUR vs. ACIT (EXMP.) CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

vi) and (via) are required to\nobtain the approval of CCIT / PCIT. The trust is running schools which\nare mostly granted by Government in the year between 1990-2000.\nCertificates from School Education Department, Government of\nMaharashtra confirming the amount of grants distributed to schools\nrun by trust is enclosed herewith as Annexure \"E\".\n2) Perusal of the Pay sheets

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE vs. BHIKSHU GRANIMART, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

Depreciation 41,07,184/- Total Rs. 36,17,58,045/- 1.3 In the assessment proceedings the assessee furnished details along with supportings, explanations & clarifications as sought by the AO on 17.01.2018, 25.10.2019, 20.11.2019 & 04.12.2019. (copies enclosed as mentioned in Para (1) 2 above). 1.4 The AO in paras 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Asst order alleges that the assessee

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

depreciation thereon. So, the extraneous profits generated from commercial operations were swept out by claiming double deduction so as to portrait that it is a charitable institution made meagre incidental profits. 8.6 Adverting to internal resolution placed at Pg230-to250/PB-1, for instance the Ld. Mr Patel submitted that, the Ld. AR’s contention that pursuant Hon’ble Supreme Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE vs. THERMAX LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1660/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Depreciation Rs.1,08,45,758/- (v) Disallowance u/s.14A Rs.1,92,02,000/- (vi) Sales Commission expenses Rs.1,25,96,932/- (vii) Legal and professional fee Rs.13,78,24,000/- (viii) Foreign exchange fluctuation loss Rs.11,06,00,000/- Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on 27.03.2015 levying penalty of Rs.10