SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(1) of the Act.” AYs 2018-19 to 2021-26 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that both the Ld. AO as well as Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has erred in disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,PUNE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(1) of the Act.” AYs 2018-19 to 2021-26 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that both the Ld. AO as well as Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has erred in disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(1) of the Act.” AYs 2018-19 to 2021-26 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that both the Ld. AO as well as Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has erred in disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(1) of the Act.” AYs 2018-19 to 2021-26 6. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that both the Ld. AO as well as Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has erred in disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption

MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

disallowance of weighted deduction claimed on expenditure incurred outside India. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred outside India on R&D u/s 35(1)(iv) although such claim was not under the same section but was u/s 35(2AB) by observing as under: “2.3 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant in light

DCIT CIRCLE 8 , PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, PUNE

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

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

disallowance of weighted deduction claimed on expenditure incurred outside India. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred outside India on R&D u/s 35(1)(iv) although such claim was not under the same section but was u/s 35(2AB) by observing as under: “2.3 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant in light

DCIT,CIRCLE-8 , PUNE vs. MAHALE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , PUNE

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

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

disallowance of weighted deduction claimed on expenditure incurred outside India. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred outside India on R&D u/s 35(1)(iv) although such claim was not under the same section but was u/s 35(2AB) by observing as under: “2.3 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant in light

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.

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. For the assessment year 2008-09 too, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.2,87,333/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the same as per the discussion given in para 60 of the order of the CIT(A). In the process, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) ignored

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.

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. For the assessment year 2008-09 too, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.2,87,333/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the same as per the discussion given in para 60 of the order of the CIT(A). In the process, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) ignored

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.

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. For the assessment year 2008-09 too, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.2,87,333/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the same as per the discussion given in para 60 of the order of the CIT(A). In the process, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) ignored

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.

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. For the assessment year 2008-09 too, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.2,87,333/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the same as per the discussion given in para 60 of the order of the CIT(A). In the process, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) ignored

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.

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. For the assessment year 2008-09 too, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.2,87,333/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the same as per the discussion given in para 60 of the order of the CIT(A). In the process, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) ignored

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.

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. For the assessment year 2008-09 too, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.2,87,333/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the same as per the discussion given in para 60 of the order of the CIT(A). In the process, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) ignored

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.

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. For the assessment year 2008-09 too, the Assessing Officer disallowed a sum of Rs.2,87,333/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the same as per the discussion given in para 60 of the order of the CIT(A). In the process, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) ignored

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded." 8. On a bare perusal of the sub section-1 would reveal that powers of revision granted

NIRMAL JYOT FACILITIES P LTD,KARAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

124 PAN: AAECN 0671K 4. 414/PUN/2021 2019-20 -do- -do- Appellant No. 1 by : Shri Sandeep Sathe Appellants No. 2, 3 & 4 by : Written submissions Respondents by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of Hearing : 19-09-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19-09-2022 ORDER PER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY These appeals preferred by the above-mentioned assessees

CAPITAL CONSTRUCTIONS,NASHIK vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

124 PAN: AAECN 0671K 4. 414/PUN/2021 2019-20 -do- -do- Appellant No. 1 by : Shri Sandeep Sathe Appellants No. 2, 3 & 4 by : Written submissions Respondents by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of Hearing : 19-09-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19-09-2022 ORDER PER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY These appeals preferred by the above-mentioned assessees

NIRMAL JYOT FACILITIES P LTD,KARAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

124 PAN: AAECN 0671K 4. 414/PUN/2021 2019-20 -do- -do- Appellant No. 1 by : Shri Sandeep Sathe Appellants No. 2, 3 & 4 by : Written submissions Respondents by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of Hearing : 19-09-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19-09-2022 ORDER PER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY These appeals preferred by the above-mentioned assessees