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 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

9 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 3.1 Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee against section 154 order, by observing as under: “Ground 01: In this ground of appeal the appellant objected the addition made by the Assessing Officer (CPC) is Rs. 5.80,64,205/- towards disallowance of 801A

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

9 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 3.1 Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee against section 154 order, by observing as under: “Ground 01: In this ground of appeal the appellant objected the addition made by the Assessing Officer (CPC) is Rs. 5.80,64,205/- towards disallowance of 801A

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, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance of expenditure

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

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

139(1), and also beyond the extended deadline of October 31, 2018, allowed for that relevant year. 6.5 In view of the above, I find no error in the AO's decision to disallow the appellant's claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Act when processing the return under Section

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

139(1), and also beyond the extended deadline of October 31, 2018, allowed for that relevant year. 6.5 In view of the above, I find no error in the AO's decision to disallow the appellant's claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Act when processing the return under Section

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

139(1), and also beyond the extended deadline of October 31, 2018, allowed for that relevant year. 6.5 In view of the above, I find no error in the AO's decision to disallow the appellant's claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Act when processing the return under Section

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

139(1), and also beyond the extended deadline of October 31, 2018, allowed for that relevant year. 6.5 In view of the above, I find no error in the AO's decision to disallow the appellant's claim for exemption under Section 11 of the Act when processing the return 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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