SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

131, the ground of appeal No.3 raised by assessee is, thus, partly allowed for statistical purpose. 15.1 Now, coming to the linked ground of appeal No. 4 raised by Revenue which is against the order of CIT(A) in holding that the investment in share in Co-operative Society are covered under section 13(1)(d

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

131, the ground of appeal No.3 raised by assessee is, thus, partly allowed for statistical purpose. 15.1 Now, coming to the linked ground of appeal No. 4 raised by Revenue which is against the order of CIT(A) in holding that the investment in share in Co-operative Society are covered under section 13(1)(d

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

131, the ground of appeal No.3 raised by assessee is, thus, partly allowed for statistical purpose. 15.1 Now, coming to the linked ground of appeal No. 4 raised by Revenue which is against the order of CIT(A) in holding that the investment in share in Co-operative Society are covered under section 13(1)(d

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

131, the ground of appeal No.3 raised by assessee is, thus, partly allowed for statistical purpose. 15.1 Now, coming to the linked ground of appeal No. 4 raised by Revenue which is against the order of CIT(A) in holding that the investment in share in Co-operative Society are covered under section 13(1)(d

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

disallowed the same. 34 On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09 onwards allowed said expenditure is revenue expenditure u/s 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

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

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

COPPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 34. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee during the year under consideration had claimed deduction of ₹ 3.89 crores under section 35(2AB) of the Act being 150% of expenditure incurred of ₹ 2.594 crores. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order had short granted deduction under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 34. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee during the year under consideration had claimed deduction of ₹ 3.89 crores under section 35(2AB) of the Act being 150% of expenditure incurred of ₹ 2.594 crores. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order had short granted deduction under section

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

D Electronics Private Limited\n(“ADEPL”) pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation approved by the\nHon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 16.04.2016. The appointed\ndate of the scheme was 01.04.2015. The Financials for Financial Year\n2015-16 were prepared for the merged entity. The assessee accounted for\nintangible assets credited out of the said scheme of amalgamation

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

1)(d) of the I.T. Act by investing in shares in the listed blue chip companies. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of provisions of section 11. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee trust is conducting courses on business management namely, MBA, MCA, DBM etc. for which the audited

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

1)(d) of the I.T. Act by investing in shares in the listed blue chip companies. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of provisions of section 11. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee trust is conducting courses on business management namely, MBA, MCA, DBM etc. for which the audited

BHANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

1)(d) of the I.T. Act by investing in shares in the listed blue chip companies. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of provisions of section 11. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee trust is conducting courses on business management namely, MBA, MCA, DBM etc. for which the audited

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

131 taxmann.com 154 (Mumbai Trib.) are found relevant:\n13. In view of the above discussions, it is clear that the regulations prohibiting the acceptance of freebies by the medical professionals provide, under section 20A of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 read with rule 6.8 of Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, as amended from time

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, JALGAON vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : These are cross appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue involving A.Y. 2010-11. They are filed against the order of CIT(A)-II, Nashik, dated 21-06-2013. We shall first take up Assessee’s appeal first. ITA No.1434/PUN/2013 – By Assessee A.Y. 2010-11 2. Grounds raised by the Assessee read as under : “1

DCIT,JALGAON vs. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION P.LTD, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : These are cross appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue involving A.Y. 2010-11. They are filed against the order of CIT(A)-II, Nashik, dated 21-06-2013. We shall first take up Assessee’s appeal first. ITA No.1434/PUN/2013 – By Assessee A.Y. 2010-11 2. Grounds raised by the Assessee read as under : “1

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