GAJANAN AGROFEEDS P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIR-1 (2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.298/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gajanan Agrofeeds Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Cir-1(2), Pune. 3, Sushila Complex, Station Vs Road, Baramati, Pune – 413102. Pan: Aaccg 3651 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 17.01.2020For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances In The Case & In Law The Lower Authorities Erred In Rejecting The Additional Evidences Filled Under Section 46A Of The Income Tax Rules, 1961 Without Realizing The Fact That Such Additional Evidences Ought To Have Been Admitted As It Goes To The Root Cause Of Issue & Therefore, Prayer Is Made For Admission Of Additional Evidences. 2. On The Facts & The Circumstances In The Case & In Law The Lower Authorities Erred In Making Addition Of Rs.86,09,000/- Being Unsecured Loans From Sister Concern By Invoking Provisions Of Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, By Rejecting The Submissions Made In This Regard & Also Additional Evidences Submitted.

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 without realizing the fact that such additional evidences ought to have been admitted as it goes to the root cause of issue and therefore, prayer is made for admission of additional evidences. 2. On the facts and the circumstances in the case and in law the lower authorities erred in making addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

46A of the IT Rules. Referring to the order of\nthe Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Ajeet Seeds Ltd.\nreported in 148 taxmann.com 14, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said\ndecision has held that deduction u/s 35(2AB) is not allowable if the approval was\nnot granted by DSIR. He heavily

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

46A of the IT Rules. Referring to the order of\nthe Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Ajeet Seeds Ltd.\nreported in 148 taxmann.com 14, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said\ndecision has held that deduction u/s 35(2AB) is not allowable if the approval was\nnot granted by DSIR. He heavily

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

46A of the IT Rules. Referring to the order of\nthe Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Ajeet Seeds Ltd.\nreported in 148 taxmann.com 14, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said\ndecision has held that deduction u/s 35(2AB) is not allowable if the approval was\nnot granted by DSIR. He heavily

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

46A of the IT Rules. Referring to the order of\nthe Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Ajeet Seeds Ltd.\nreported in 148 taxmann.com 14, he submitted that the Tribunal in the said\ndecision has held that deduction u/s 35(2AB) is not allowable if the approval was\nnot granted by DSIR. He heavily

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

46A. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not called for any remand report from the Assessing Officer nor gave any opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify the same. Further, the assessee is filing certain additional evidences before the Tribunal for the first time. This itself shows that full details were even not filed before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 , NASHIK vs. M/S MAHAKALESHWAR TOLLWAYS PVT LTD, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeal is dismissed

Section 32(1)(ii) are applicable even when it is clear that the Agreement is not in the form of licensing agreement, but in the form of repayment/reimbursement agreement. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that permission granted by the State Government to collect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALNA CIRCLE,, JALNA vs. SANJAY DEVENDRAPARSAD RAI,, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.801/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sanjay Devendraprasad Rai, Income Tax, Jalna Circle, Vs Prop. Shivshakti Services, 343, Jalna. Manik Nagar, Lakkadkot, Jalna – 431 203. Pan: Akqpr 3680 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Cross Objection No.17/Pun/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.801/Pun/2018) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sanjay Devendraprasad Rai, The Asst. Commissioner Of Prop. Shivshakti Services, 343, Vs Income Tax, Jalna Circle, Manik Nagar, Lakkadkot, Jalna. Jalna – 431 203. Pan: Akqpr 3680 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Dr.Prayag Jha & Shri Prateek Jha – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Appeal Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-1,[Ld.Cit(A)], Pune Dated 05.02.2018 For

depreciation of Rs.59,01,774/- on account of subsidy received to that extent. viii) On the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), Aurangabad has erred in reducing the capital subsidy received from the profits for computation of book profits u/s 115JB of the IT Act. ix) On the facts & in the circumstances of the case

GURU KRIPA SEVA ASHYRAM,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD 1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

46A of the Act. Hence, these additional evidences are not admitted for deciding the grounds of the present appeal. Now, the ground-wise decisions are as under- 4.1 Ground No. 1 relates to denial of deduction u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. In this matter, it is an undisputed fact that the appellant failed to furnish the requisite Form

DCIT, PUNE vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

46A(3) of the I.T. Rules. 4. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of antivirus software and providing IT related service. For AY 2014-15, the assessee filed its return

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE vs. MAHINDRA INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ACADEMY, PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 10(23C)(vi), thus conflicting the maxim of "Lex Specialis Derogat Legi Generali". 3. On facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) misconstrued the implications of the remittance documentation and the nature of expenses claimed, and in 3 ITA.No.980/PUN./2023 particular, the Medical Insurance Premium for the Director, and whether such an interpretation is inconsistent

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE vs. GRANT MEDICAL FOUNDATION, PUNE

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

sections 143(3A) & 143(3B)of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 08.04.2021. ITA No.2352/PUN/2024[R] 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in treating the donations as corpus donations relying on the MoUs executed with the donors i.e. Serum

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 7. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted all the additions made by the Assessing Officer. So far as the addition of Rs.1 crore made by the Assessing Officer is concerned, he deleted the same by observing as under: 5 “6.1 On perusal of the submission made by the appellant

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. FLOWLINE SYSTEMS PVT LTD, NEW PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2168/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner V Flowline Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, S 401, 402, Bhoomi Landmark, Panvel. New Panvel, Dist-Raigad. Maharashtra – 410206. Pan: Aabcf1096R Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri A R Sakhalkar & Shri M.R.Dharmadhikari –Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 14.08.2024 For A.Y.2021-22 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Issued By Adit(Cpc), Bangalore. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

46A(3) of the 1. T. Rules, 1962. c. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. d. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal