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

depreciation on UPS to the extent of 60%. Similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010-11. Thus, the ground No. 5 of the appeal is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid. 8. The ground No. 6 of the appeal is : “6. In the facts and circumstances of the case

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

depreciation on UPS to the extent of 60%. Similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010-11. Thus, the ground No. 5 of the appeal is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid. 8. The ground No. 6 of the appeal is : “6. In the facts and circumstances of the case

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

depreciation on UPS to the extent of 60%. Similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2010-11. Thus, the ground No. 5 of the appeal is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid. 8. The ground No. 6 of the appeal is : “6. In the facts and circumstances of the case

SHREE MAHAVEER RESEARCH FOUDATION,PUNE vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION) (HQ), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.792/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shree Mahaveer Research V The Dcit(Exemption) Foundation, S (Hq), Pune. 1183/ C/O.Vijayraj Ranka, G C Jewellers, Raviwar Peth, Pune – 411002. Maharashtra. Pan: Aadts7800B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) – Virtual Hearing. Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/05/2025

Section 11 of the Act. Assessee is eligible for depreciation and ld.CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the same. Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. In this case, Assessing Officer

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

5) vide latest order dt. 30/03/2017 (Pg57-58/PB-2). 7.3 To bolster the assessee’s eligibility for 12A registration and in turn its entitlement for exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act, the Ld. AR on the point of (i) ‘nature of operations or activities’ adverting to registered Bye-laws (Pg326 to 337/PB1) vehemently contended that, the plain reading

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

depreciation in the fight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not concerned with the same. 45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

depreciation in the fight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not concerned with the same. 45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA ,PUNE vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

5. Next comes the second issue of disallowance of prior period expenditure amounting to Rs.1,72,73,670/- made in both the lower proceedings. Suffice to say, both the learned lower authorities are of the view that once the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting, it ought to have claimed and recognized the impugned expenditure in the year of accrual

DATTAKALA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT , I.TAX DEPT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

5. Without prejudice to grounds 1, 2 ,3 & 4 above the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the one sided addition of entire gross receipts of Rs.26,70,63,238/ without allowing for Revenue expenditure of Rs.26,52,43,398/ shown in the Schedule-ER of the Return of Income and accepted at page

DATTAKALA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,PUNE vs. A.D.I.T, CPC, BANGALURU, BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

5. Without prejudice to grounds 1, 2 ,3 & 4 above the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the one sided addition of entire gross receipts of Rs.26,70,63,238/ without allowing for Revenue expenditure of Rs.26,52,43,398/ shown in the Schedule-ER of the Return of Income and accepted at page

YASHWANTRAO MOHITE KRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

5. It is in the above back ground that the concession given in sugar sold by assessee societies to members or cane growers is required to be adjudicated. On perusal of assessment orders and appellate orders of the CIT(A)s it is seen that the very first issue to be decided, i.e. whether difference between market price and concessional

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LOKNETE BALASAHEB DESAI SAHAKARI, SATARA

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

5. It is in the above back ground that the concession given in sugar sold by assessee societies to members or cane growers is required to be adjudicated. On perusal of assessment orders and appellate orders of the CIT(A)s it is seen that the very first issue to be decided, i.e. whether difference between market price and concessional

SAHAKAR MAHARSHI SHANKARRAO MOHITE PATIL SSK LTD.,,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

5. It is in the above back ground that the concession given in sugar sold by assessee societies to members or cane growers is required to be adjudicated. On perusal of assessment orders and appellate orders of the CIT(A)s it is seen that the very first issue to be decided, i.e. whether difference between market price and concessional

SHREE ADINATH SSK LTD.,,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

5. It is in the above back ground that the concession given in sugar sold by assessee societies to members or cane growers is required to be adjudicated. On perusal of assessment orders and appellate orders of the CIT(A)s it is seen that the very first issue to be decided, i.e. whether difference between market price and concessional

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI VITTHAL S.S.K. LTD.,, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

5. It is in the above back ground that the concession given in sugar sold by assessee societies to members or cane growers is required to be adjudicated. On perusal of assessment orders and appellate orders of the CIT(A)s it is seen that the very first issue to be decided, i.e. whether difference between market price and concessional

MAJALGAON S.S.K. LTD.,,BEED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

5. It is in the above back ground that the concession given in sugar sold by assessee societies to members or cane growers is required to be adjudicated. On perusal of assessment orders and appellate orders of the CIT(A)s it is seen that the very first issue to be decided, i.e. whether difference between market price and concessional

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK vs. VASANTRAO DADA PATIL SSK LTD., NASHIK

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

5. It is in the above back ground that the concession given in sugar sold by assessee societies to members or cane growers is required to be adjudicated. On perusal of assessment orders and appellate orders of the CIT(A)s it is seen that the very first issue to be decided, i.e. whether difference between market price and concessional

M/S. NIRA BHIMA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeals of assessees and the Department are partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

5. It is in the above back ground that the concession given in sugar sold by assessee societies to members or cane growers is required to be adjudicated. On perusal of assessment orders and appellate orders of the CIT(A)s it is seen that the very first issue to be decided, i.e. whether difference between market price and concessional