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

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

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. 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

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

2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full one time deduction in the year of such incurring. Unlike sub-section (2AB), sub-section (1) does not require any specific approval from the prescribed authority for this purpose. Further, there is no stipulation that

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

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

JOSHIRAO ENGINEERING ,PUNE 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

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

PUSHPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10 , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.300/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14 Pushpak Steel Industries The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, V Cricle-10, Pune. Gat No.119, Alandi Markal S Road, Alandi Markal Road,Vill-Dhanore, Pune – 412105. Pan: Aabcp 0081 C Assessee / Appellant Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune Dated 27.01.2023 For A.Y.2013-14 Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 13.12.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per The Provisions & The Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Pushpak Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., [A]

2)(iii) r.w.section 14A: 7. In this case, it is an admitted fact that assessee has earned exempt income of only Rs.2,000/-. 7.1 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa v. Ajit Ramakant Phatarpekar [2021] 124 taxmann.com 124 (Bombay) held as under : Quote , “9. There is no perversity

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

2(14) to provide that those equity shares, the sale of which invites payment of STT, will not be considered capital assets. Likewise, the Legislature could have provided in section 47, that the transfer of equity shares on w7hich STT has been paid will not be considered as a ‘transfer’ for the purposes of section

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since