INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed the same u/s 37 of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,22,86,304/-. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee submitted that the reasons for reopening were communited to the assessee after 11 months of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act although the assessee

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

131 ITR 680,CIT Vs Abdul Majeed(1998)232 ITR 50, Sarabhai Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CIT, 257 ITR 355 and few more case laws as discussed above in assessee's submission. But none of the case law is useful for the assessee as the facts of the case are different and distinguished. 3 ITA No.759/PUN/2024

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance of the claim of\ndepreciation on goodwill arising to the assessee pursuant to the\namalgamation of YAPL and ADEPL with the assessee is concerned, we find\nthat the impugned issue is covered in favour of the assessee by catena of\ndecisions of various judicial forums including the Jurisdictional Bombay\nHigh Court as well as Jurisdictional Mumbai and Pune ITAT

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

disallowance of expenditure in violation of the MCI Regulations which come in the ambit of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and CBDT Circular No 05/2012. This clearly shows that the averments of the Assessing Officer in his reference are proved.\n12. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

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

131 of the Act during\nthe survey u/s 133A of the Act on 14.09.2016 in his reply to question Nos.11 and\n13 has stated the reasons for non disclosure of such conversion of capital asset to\nstock in trade which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs.\nFurther, during the course of assessment proceedings, on being asked

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE vs. M/S SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (TRUST), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

section 13(1)(c) of the Act on account of salary paid to Shri U.Y. Pawar, who was admittedly working for a company like JSAPL as the amount of salary was reimbursed to the appellant society violation had been cured. (G). As regards to the disallowance of prior period expenses, the ld. AR submits that the prior period expenses

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

disallowance made on account of profits on sale/redemption of investments. The relevant facts are that as a part of General Insurance business, the assessee is mandated by the Insurance Act, 1951 and IRDA to make investments in specified securities. During the A.Y. 2007-08, the assessee has earned profits on sale/redemption of investments

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

disallowance made on account of profits on sale/redemption of investments. The relevant facts are that as a part of General Insurance business, the assessee is mandated by the Insurance Act, 1951 and IRDA to make investments in specified securities. During the A.Y. 2007-08, the assessee has earned profits on sale/redemption of investments

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

131 13(2) read\nwith sec 11(5) of the Income-tax Act. 1961\n3. (Nothing is mentioned at Ground number 3)\n4. The ld Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in exercising\njurisdiction u/s 263 and issuing directions to the AO to reopen the case\nin respect of issue of investment related party despite the said issue was\nthoroughly

SOLAPUR DCC BANK EMPLOYEES CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), SOLAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 713/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Solapur Dcc Bank Employees Co-Op Society Ltd., 46 Vistarit Imarat, Yogeshwar Complex, Solapur Zilla Madhyawarat Bank, Navi Peth Solapur – 413001 Pan: Aabas9454N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

1)(va) made in the present case falls out of qualifying list enumerated in the CBDT Circular (supra), therefore assessee’s claim for 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction against the consequential enhanced business income is inadmissible. 9. We note that, the issue of whether income enhanced in the course of assessment on account of various disallowances made

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

1) of the Act dated 08.01.2021, he\ndrew the attention of the Bench to clause (8) of the said notice which reads as\nunder:\n\"8. Please give complete details and justification for deductions claimed under\nChapter VI A along with documentary evidence thereof.”\n7. Referring to the reply dated 11.08.2021, copy of which is placed at pages

ST LAWRENCE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, AURANGABAD,AURANGABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years : 2009-10 To 2019-20 St. Xavier‘S Education Trust, Vs. The Pr.Cit(Central), R-7/1, Town Centre, Nagpur Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2019-20 St. Lawrence Educational Trust, Vs. The Pr.Cit(Central), Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Nagpur Salta Circle, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent

disallowances‖. The answer is self explanatory. 16. Through question no.16, she was asked that: ―you have booked substantial amount under head bonus, allowances and perks in The St. Lawrence Trust ranging averagely 5-6 Cr annually. Similar types of expenses are also booked in the St. Xaviers Trust. Sr. Xavier Education Trust St. Lawrence Educational Trust Since such a huge

ST XAVIER'S EDUCATION TRUST, AURANGABAD,AURANGABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years : 2009-10 To 2019-20 St. Xavier‘S Education Trust, Vs. The Pr.Cit(Central), R-7/1, Town Centre, Nagpur Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aacts4140D Appellant Respondent Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2019-20 St. Lawrence Educational Trust, Vs. The Pr.Cit(Central), Gut No.42, Sunderwadi, Nagpur Salta Circle, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aaats5598P Appellant Respondent

disallowances‖. The answer is self explanatory. 16. Through question no.16, she was asked that: ―you have booked substantial amount under head bonus, allowances and perks in The St. Lawrence Trust ranging averagely 5-6 Cr annually. Similar types of expenses are also booked in the St. Xaviers Trust. Sr. Xavier Education Trust St. Lawrence Educational Trust Since such a huge

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

disallowing it in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the major portion of the addition, sustaining only 2% as commission income.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "133A", "133(6)", "271(1)(c)", "37(1)", "131

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTAMT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.775/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.758/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......Cross Objector बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019

disallowance of excess claim for deduction u/s 80IC of Rs.9,61,86,526/- on the ground that the appellant while computing profits for the purpose of allowance u/s 80IC had not allocated R&D expenditure. While allocating this common expenditure, the AO also taken into consideration the statement of Vice President of the company recorded u/s 131 on 11.11.2000 wherein

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c)/271AAB of the Act, where the income is assessed on the basis of material seized in search & seizure action carried out u/s 132 of the Act and further such addition is buoyed by the declaration on oath u/s 131 of the Act. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue delt in these bunch of appeals

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c)/271AAB of the Act, where the income is assessed on the basis of material seized in search & seizure action carried out u/s 132 of the Act and further such addition is buoyed by the declaration on oath u/s 131 of the Act. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue delt in these bunch of appeals

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANAGBAD., AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD.

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c)/271AAB of the Act, where the income is assessed on the basis of material seized in search & seizure action carried out u/s 132 of the Act and further such addition is buoyed by the declaration on oath u/s 131 of the Act. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue delt in these bunch of appeals