PUNE MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHKARI PATAPEDHI MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,PUNE 4, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person

SHETH CHIMANLAL GOVINDDAS MEMORIAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallow the entire investment of Rs 32,75,0007-\nand tax it at the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR). The FAO was also\nrequired to reject the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 11 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the interest earned from this\nimpermissible investment which is, as per Schedule 3 (List of interest\nreceived/accrued

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 3, SATARA vs. M/S. SHRI BHAIRAVNATH MULTISTATE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

119/- as dividend income from Mutual Fund. These investments were made out of the surplus funds. The Assessing Officer asked the AR to justify and explain as to how the interest/dividend income qualifies for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The AR in response to the letter replied that deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) is not applicable. Deduction

BHARAT FORGE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.13/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

119/-. We find no merit in the plea of assessee in this regard and dismissing the same, we uphold the disallowance made by Assessing Officer. Thus, grounds of appeal No.1 to 1.5 raised by assessee are dismissed. 5 10. Now, coming to grounds of appeal No.2.1 to 2.5, wherein the assessee is in appeal against the disallowance of weighted deduction

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

disallowance u/s. 14A the Act to the extent of Rs. 20,10,855/-. 10. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The assessee prays leave to add to above grounds to amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

disallowance u/s. 14A the Act to the extent of Rs. 20,10,855/-. 10. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the charging of interest u/s 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The assessee prays leave to add to above grounds to amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

2,53,998/- 19,76,44,154/- 3. There was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act at the residential as well as business premises of the assessee and the Sri Vijaykumar Rajaram Shah on 15.06.2010 (A.Y. 2009-10). The search action resulted in seizure of certain incriminating materials (the relevant details given in para

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

2,53,998/- 19,76,44,154/- 3. There was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act at the residential as well as business premises of the assessee and the Sri Vijaykumar Rajaram Shah on 15.06.2010 (A.Y. 2009-10). The search action resulted in seizure of certain incriminating materials (the relevant details given in para

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

2,53,998/- 19,76,44,154/- 3. There was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act at the residential as well as business premises of the assessee and the Sri Vijaykumar Rajaram Shah on 15.06.2010 (A.Y. 2009-10). The search action resulted in seizure of certain incriminating materials (the relevant details given in para

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

2,53,998/- 19,76,44,154/- 3. There was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act at the residential as well as business premises of the assessee and the Sri Vijaykumar Rajaram Shah on 15.06.2010 (A.Y. 2009-10). The search action resulted in seizure of certain incriminating materials (the relevant details given in para

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

2,53,998/- 19,76,44,154/- 3. There was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act at the residential as well as business premises of the assessee and the Sri Vijaykumar Rajaram Shah on 15.06.2010 (A.Y. 2009-10). The search action resulted in seizure of certain incriminating materials (the relevant details given in para

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

2,53,998/- 19,76,44,154/- 3. There was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act at the residential as well as business premises of the assessee and the Sri Vijaykumar Rajaram Shah on 15.06.2010 (A.Y. 2009-10). The search action resulted in seizure of certain incriminating materials (the relevant details given in para

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

2,53,998/- 19,76,44,154/- 3. There was a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act at the residential as well as business premises of the assessee and the Sri Vijaykumar Rajaram Shah on 15.06.2010 (A.Y. 2009-10). The search action resulted in seizure of certain incriminating materials (the relevant details given in para

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

c. The appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter any of the above Questions of Law at the time of hearing of appeal. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the original return has been filed after the statutory period and is delayed by 02 seconds, therefore, the CPC is fully justified in denying the claim of carry forward loss

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)

disallow the expenditure asrevenue expenditure is erroneous in law. 38. In the context of business take over by Banks, the Reserve Bank of India has specifically provided that the premium paid for taking over of business shall only be amortized over a period not exceeding 5 years, but shall not be capitalized. The issue of treatment of such premium came

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

c) of the Act are initiated. [Rs.2,06,68,835/-]” 6. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj reported in 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta). So far as the arguments made

SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS ,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saitawadekarjewellers, The Pr.Cit, Pune-1. 1825, B2 Padma Talkies Bldg, Vs Opp.Urban Bank Bazar Peth, Chiplun – 415605. Pan : - Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assesseeisdirected Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1Dated 22.11.2022Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 27.11.2017Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pcit In His Order U/S 263, While Giving Effect To The Order Dtd.31.05.2022 Of The Honorable Itat, Erred In Making The Following Additions To The Income Determined Vide Assessment Order Saitawadekar Jewellers [A]

Disallowance on account alleged cash payments in violation of Section 40A(3). even though, as was substantiated in the submission to the Ld. PCIT, there isneither any violation of S.40A (3) nor the excess income declared during surveyhas remained to be disclosed, which fact was duly examined by the AO duringthe assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). The appellant therefore prays

VITHAL RAO SHINDE SSK LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ACIT, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

119 & 120 Shri M.K. Kulkarni – Sr. No.8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 33, 34, 52, 58, 64, 65, 69, 70 & 71 Ms. Riya Shah – Sr. No.10, 20, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 & 101 Smt. Deepa Khare – Sr. No.23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 & 118 Shri K. Srinivasan – Sr. No.48, 62, 63, 92, 93, 94, 108 & 109 Shri Dula Sawant

DY.CIT, CIR.-3(1), DHULE, DHULE vs. SHIRPUR SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,, DAHIWAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

119 & 120 Shri M.K. Kulkarni – Sr. No.8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 33, 34, 52, 58, 64, 65, 69, 70 & 71 Ms. Riya Shah – Sr. No.10, 20, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 & 101 Smt. Deepa Khare – Sr. No.23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 & 118 Shri K. Srinivasan – Sr. No.48, 62, 63, 92, 93, 94, 108 & 109 Shri Dula Sawant