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

2) of the Act dated 23.09.2019 was issued and served on the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

2: Add back non-cash costs i.e. depreciation etc Step 3: Subtract capital expenditures. Step 4: Subtract Increases in working capital. Step 5: Take into account the effect of changes in Debts. Step 6: Discount the FCFF for each year at the cost of capital. Step 7: Add the terminal value accruing in the final year. Step 8: Arrive

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

viia) introduced with effect from AY 2014-15. This heins the first year of operation of the Explanation, very less clarity was available on its applicability. 49. The claim of the assessee has been denied by the lower authorities solely based on Explanation 2 to Section 36(l)(vii) introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 01st April

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

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

viia) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal no.3 filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. Ground of appeal no.4 challenges the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii) solely on the ground that the similar

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

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

viia) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal no.3 filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. Ground of appeal no.4 challenges the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii) solely on the ground that the similar

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

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

viia) of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal no.3 filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. Ground of appeal no.4 challenges the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii). The Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of Rs.53,23,92,280/- u/s 36(1)(vii) solely on the ground that the similar

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

56 to 58 of the Act and the claim of bad and doubtful debts is not covered under the provisions of sec. 57(iii) of the Act. The A.O after considering the provisions of sec. 57(iii) had disallowed the claim of bad and doubtful debts debt against the income from other sources being not eligible expenses. Feeling aggrieved

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

56 to 58 of the Act and the claim of bad and doubtful debts is not covered under the provisions of sec. 57(iii) of the Act. The A.O after considering the provisions of sec. 57(iii) had disallowed the claim of bad and doubtful debts debt against the income from other sources being not eligible expenses. Feeling aggrieved

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

56 to 58 of the Act and the claim of bad and doubtful debts is not covered under the provisions of sec. 57(iii) of the Act. The A.O after considering the provisions of sec. 57(iii) had disallowed the claim of bad and doubtful debts debt against the income from other sources being not eligible expenses. Feeling aggrieved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. PUNE CANTONMENT SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

viia) was withdrawn and the total income was determined at Rs.15,81,901/-. Thereafter, the case was re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and thereafter re-assessment was framed vide order dt.05.03.2015 and the total income was determined at Rs.2,49,20,300/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT