INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

139(5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

139(5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

139(5), same should be treated as due compliance with clause (ba) in sub-section (1) of section 12A and thus, the assessee was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. So far as denial of exemption u/s 11 on account of belated filing of audit report in Form 10B is concerned, the Ld. Counsel

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

Section 139(5) of the IT Act and taking a contrary stand and/or claiming the exemption, which was specifically not claimed earlier while fling the original return of income is not permissible" 6.4.3 Based on the above facts and legal positions as well, it is not crystal clear that in Assessee's case, during the assessment order, FAO accepted

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

Section 139(5) of the IT Act and taking a contrary stand and/or claiming the exemption, which was specifically not claimed earlier while fling the original return of income is not permissible" 6.4.3 Based on the above facts and legal positions as well, it is not crystal clear that in Assessee's case, during the assessment order, FAO accepted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE vs. M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1794/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Vishram Developers, 61B/11, Zelum Apartment, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aagfv0995F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Ajay Singh / Deepak Sasar Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg

section 139(5) raising a claim for carry forward of speculation loss - Assessing Officer disallowed said claim on ground that

SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PANDHARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 PANDHARPUR , PANDHARPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

5-7-2012, which was much beyondthe date for filing of return in terms of section 139(4) of the IT Act. The return of income for the assessmentyear 2009-10 should have been filed on or before 31-3- 2011 in terms of section 139(4) of the IT Act. Sincethe return of income was filed after the expiry

M/S. SHARADA PAPER COMPANY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1547/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S.Sharada Paper Company, The Income Tax Officer, 436/8, Narayan Peth, Vs Ward-11(4), Pune. Maharashtra – 411030. Pan: Aaffs 1470 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 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(Appeals)-8, Pune For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Dated 18.07.2019 Arising Out Of Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.03.2013. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Withdrawal Of Claim For The Carry Forward Of Loss For A.Y. 2003-04, A.Y. 2004-05, A.Y.2005-06 & A.Y.2006- 07 Without Verifying The Facts. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Rectification Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 154 & Thereby Withdrawing Loss Allowed In The Assessment Made Under Section 143(3) Of Income Taxact,1961 Without Appreciating The Fact That This Is Not Mistake Apparent From Records & Hence Cannot Be Rectified Under 154 Of The Act.

disallowed the carry forward losses for the AY 2003-04 to 2005-06. Accordingly Ground No.1 to 5 are DISMISSED” Unquote. 3.1. In this case, the assessee had claimed that return of income for A.Y. 2003-04, 2004-05 were filed within time, as per section 139

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act due to late filing of audit report in Form 10B under the provisions of section 12A(1)(B) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) challenging intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act with a delay which was condoned

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act due to late filing of audit report in Form 10B under the provisions of section 12A(1)(B) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) challenging intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act with a delay which was condoned

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act due to late filing of audit report in Form 10B under the provisions of section 12A(1)(B) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) challenging intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act with a delay which was condoned

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act due to late filing of audit report in Form 10B under the provisions of section 12A(1)(B) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) challenging intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act with a delay which was condoned

VIRENDRA SINGH SAINI,HARYANA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, BENGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

139(1) of the Act amounts to sufficient compliance of the provisions in terms of section 43B of the Act, not calling for any disallowance. Per contra, the Department has set up a case that the disallowance is called for because of the per se late deposit of the employees’ share beyond the due date under the respective

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowed the same by holding as under- "It would be pertinent to mention here that the above assessed loss of Rs.73,24,3051- is inclusive of Depreciation loss of Rs. 12,69,0741-. Further, under the circumstances that the return of income was not filed within the stipulated time limit as detailed in section 139(1) of the Act, only

SHARP DESIGNERS AND ENGINEERS INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

5) of the Act. The present litigation arose in view of the stipulation for validly claiming of said deduction if any only through filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The said condition was provided in section 80AC of the Act. On perusal of the above submissions of Ld. AR, we find the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHARP DESIGNERS & ENGINEERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

5) of the Act. The present litigation arose in view of the stipulation for validly claiming of said deduction if any only through filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The said condition was provided in section 80AC of the Act. On perusal of the above submissions of Ld. AR, we find the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHARP DESIGNER AND ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

5) of the Act. The present litigation arose in view of the stipulation for validly claiming of said deduction if any only through filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The said condition was provided in section 80AC of the Act. On perusal of the above submissions of Ld. AR, we find the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal

SOLAPUR DIST M S K SAMITI H MASTER T AND N T PATH MYDT PANDHARPUR,PANDHARPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H The Income Tax Officer, Master T & N T Path V Ward-2, Pandharapur. Mydtpandharpur, S 3980, Station Road, Pandharpur. Maharashtra – 413304. Pan: Aanas9890E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.05.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2019Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Assessee Was In Presumption That Co Operative Societies Income Is Exempt Under 80P Generally Maximum Co Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T & N T Path Mydt Pandharpur [A]

disallowed the deduction u/s SOP on the basis of section 80AC of income Tax Act 1961. But our case relates to AY 2017-18. And Section 80AC was amended wef 01.04.2018 prospectively. 14. We also keep reliance on the following cases also where deduction under section 80P was allowed even if Return was not filed or filed in response