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

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

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

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

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

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

5. The amount of capital loss has been adjusted by the assessee against business income. Assessee is one of the beneficiaries of this arranged Sham Transactions and its claim of dividend income and business loss is required to be disallowed / taxed accordingly as per computation as under: Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Redeemed Value

AJINKYA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SEVAK SAH. PATSANSTHA, MARYADIT,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance\nof deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.36,53,721/- of the Income Tax\nAct.\nIt is appropriate to reiterate that the appellant is a cooperative society who\nfiled belated income tax return u/s 139(4) on 13.05.2021 declaring a gross\ntotal income of Rs.1,39,490/- and claimed deductions under Chapter VIA,\nspecifically under 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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable