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

section. The assessee created reserve on the basis of book profits. The assessee corporation was, however, entitled to a higher deduction under s. 36(1)(viii) for which the reserve already created was not sufficient. The learned CIT(A) therefore directed the AO to afford an opportunity to the assessee to create further reserve. It was further observed

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

section. The assessee created reserve on the basis of book profits. The assessee corporation was, however, entitled to a higher deduction under s. 36(1)(viii) for which the reserve already created was not sufficient. The learned CIT(A) therefore directed the AO to afford an opportunity to the assessee to create further reserve. It was further observed

BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

Depreciation Claim v. Default in TDS vi. Default in TDS & Disallowance for such Default vii. Refund Claim viii. Business Loss ix. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment x. Disallowance u/s 40A(7) (Gratuity provision) xi. Expenses incurred for Earning Exempt Income xii. Excess Contribution to Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund xiii. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xiv. Business Expenses

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

viii) As regards, the disallowance of donation of Rs.5,50,000/- u/s 37(1), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of donation of Rs.5,50,000/- made to Sakal Social Foundation. (ix) With regard to claim for allowance of depreciation on windmill of Rs.56,11,914/-, the ld. CIT(A) held that civil construction and electrical work were undertaken

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

viii). Though a part of the income of the assessee qualified for deduction u/s.10A in the regular computation, but such deduction is not available in the computation of income u/s.115JB in view of the amended clause (f) 25 and IT(TP) A.No.10/Bang/2014 and clause (ii) of the Explanation 1 to section 115JB at the material time. Thus

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

depreciation on the said disallowance of expenditure even after holding the same to be capital in nature.” From the above, it is evident that ground Nos. 1 and 2 relates to claim of deduction u/s.35AB of the Act and ground Nos. 3 and 4 relates to allowability of claim of business loss relatable to abandonment of the 3 A.Y.1999-2000 proposed

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods √ xi) Excess interest provision reversed 1,72,87,043 xii) Donation 35,500 xiii) Stamp/Registration charges on 68,47,448 increase in share capital xiv) Provision for unrealized loss on 1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods √ xi) Excess interest provision reversed 1,72,87,043 xii) Donation 35,500 xiii) Stamp/Registration charges on 68,47,448 increase in share capital xiv) Provision for unrealized loss on 1

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

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

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

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

Appeal is dismissed

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

VIII. The Appellant craves to add, alter, modify, delete and amend any of the above grounds as per the circumstances of the case.” 4. It emerges during the course of hearing that the Revenue’s I and VI substantive grounds raise identical pleadings that the impugned disallowance u/s.36(1)(iii) qua the assessee’s interest claim of Rs.2

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

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small