VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

40A(3) of the Act and unsecured loans taken from Akash Foods and Feeds for which Assessing Officer was satisfied with the reply filed by the assessee and re- assessment proceedings were concluded after making addition u/s.68 of the Act at ₹83,56,232 and disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act at ₹1,36,378. Assessed income

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. EPYGEN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

40A to an employee engaged in such scientific research or on the purchase of materials used in such scientific research, the aggregate of the expenditure so laid out or expended within the three years immediately preceding the commencement of the business shall, to the extent it is certified by the prescribed authority to have been laid out or expended

SANT TUKARAM SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5),, PUNE

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

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

depreciation and carry forward business losses may be recomputed in light of Ground No. 1. 3. The appellant craves right to add, alter, delete, modify or amend any change or all the above grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing.” 3. The ground No. 1(a) raised by the assessee challenges the action

VIGHNAHAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

VIGHNAHAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (JUDICIAL (HQ),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

DANA INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation on the same will warrant inclusion in the operating costs. The impugned order on this issue is set aside. The AO/TPO is directed to verify this aspect and then decide accordingly. II. Prior period expenses 11.1. The next operating cost disputed by the assessee is `Prior period expenses’. The ld. AR stated that the assessee incurred Administrative expenses

ALPHA FOAM LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -8,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1122/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Alpha Foam Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. J-172, Midc, Bhosari, Vs Pune – 411026. . Pan: Aacca 4196 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 07/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-6, Pune’S In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-6/10040/2018-19 Dated 12.06.2019, In Proceedings U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”]. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

depreciation, ITA No.1122/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 (A) Alpha Foam Limited sales promotion, section 40A(i) and legal professional expenses

SILVER OAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT-6, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

section 40A(7) of the Act indicates that the assessee made a computation error in its return of income. Apart from the fact that the assessee did not notice the error, it was not even noticed even by the Assessing Officer who framed the assessment order. In that sense, even the Assessing Officer seems to have made a mistake

SHIVAJI JAGANNATH BHOSALE,BARAMATI vs. ITO WARD-5(4), PUNE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1873/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 Mr.Shivaji Jagannath Bhosale, The Income Tax Officer, Shrinath Transport Company, Vs Ward-5(4), Pune. Near Dynamix Dairy, Baramati-Bhigwan Ropad, Baramati, Pune – 413133 Pan: Abgpb 8933 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandhbhor – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune, Dated 20.09.2019For The A.Y. 2003-04. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 25,00,000/- In Respect Of Transportation Charges. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Failed To Consider The Fact That Transport Charges Paid By The Appellant Have Not Been Doubted In Assessments Of Any Of The Subsequent Years & Therefore Following The Principle Of Consistency No Addition On Adhoc Basis Can Be Made On The Same Ground In A. Y. 2003-04. Mr.Shivaji Jagannath Bhosale (A)

depreciation on new trucks has eaten away his profits is not tenable and therefore, it is proved beyond doubt that the assessee has inflated the expenses. Further, it is, pertinent to note here that the law has been amended recently to mandatorily deduct tax at source as per the provision of section 40a

M/S. ORGANICA,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK -1, NASHIK

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

depreciation deduction, which in turn, was converted to a complete one only for the foregoing three heads. We make it clear that this is not the Revenue’s case that the learned PCIT has found any fault with the Assessing Officer’s action in not converting the foregoing limited scrutiny to a complete one so far as these latter twin

MAHAVIR FLEET OPERATORS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotemahavir Fleet Operators Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Gat No. 1349, Khandvenagar, Of Income Tax, Wagholi, Pune – 412307 Circle – 11(2), Pune Vs. Pan : Aafcm9834N

section 40A(3) disallowance made in both the lower proceedings involving a sum of Rs.23,10,000/-. A perusal of assessment findings in Para No. 4.1 suggests that the main figure of Rs.15,69,530/- involves M/s. M D Ballorgi. Learned counsel sought to clarify that the assessee’s transportation fleet is almost of 150 vehicles wherein the normal wear

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

40A(3), 40(a)(ia), sec. 37 etc. The Assessing Officer erroneously and negligently treated all cash deposits as sales made by the assessee ignoring the vital fact that the assessee himself had disclosed meager sale of Rs.14,72,581 in his Profit &% Loss account as a part and parcel of return of income filed by him. All these facts

GARVE MOTORS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.776/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Garve Motors Pvt. Ltd., S.No.136/1A 46, B P Road, Pune – 411016 . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aadcg4391A बनाम / V/S. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mrs. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Extant Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 06/12/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Climbed Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 15/03/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2013-14. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 12

40a(ia) and disallowance of repairs & maintenance holding as Capex. 4.2 The assessee company challenged the action of Ld. AO contesting all the addition before the first appellate authority [for short “FAA”], wherein the Ld. CIT(A) finding force in assessee’s contention granted part relief as regards to depreciation on demo car following precedents laid in assessee

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 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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since