SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Section 263 of\nthe (IT) Act. Accordingly, after considering the totality of facts & circumstances of\nthe case and for the detailed reasons discussed herein above, I hold that the\nassessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dtd. 28/12/2018 for AY 2011-12, passed by\nthe Assessing Officer as erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of revenue.\n9.0 Accordingly, the assessment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE PANVEL vs. OUTABOX MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLP, GHATKOPAR MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

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

Section 142 (1). 2. In the present case, the facts did not warrant the order made by the High Court. At the same time, this Court notices that the High Court had granted liberty to the concerned authority to issue appropriate notice. 3. It is clarified, therefore, that the assessing officer is free to complete the assessment (in case

MARUTI KESHAVRAO DIDHORE,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia). It postulates that while qualifying the\namount to be made out of own sweet will, it had claimed the same\nas expenditure. In such a situation, failure to bring this\ncompensation to tax and granting total exemption treating it as a\ncapital receipt would result in double jeopardy to the exchequer. This\ntest of applicability

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

disallowance of Rs.66,20,000/- on account of violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC quashed the re-assessment proceedings, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue. Admittedly

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallow the entire investment of Rs 32,75,0007-\nand tax it at the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR). The FAO was also\nrequired to reject the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 11 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the interest earned from this\nimpermissible investment which is, as per Schedule 3 (List of interest\nreceived/accrued

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.

3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal -8) has erred on facts not allowing carry forward of loss even though return for A.Y. 2003-04, A.Y. 2004- 05 , and A.Y.2006-07 was filed originally within the due date of section 139(1) and which were never revised under section 139(5). 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

GOEL EISHA CAPITALS,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire was issued on 03.11.2020\nand 11.12.2020. The assessee responded to the above statutory notices by\nfurnishing the details through e-proceedings portal which were verified by the\nAssessing Officer. After verifying the details, the Assessing Officer completed the\nassessment u/s 143(3) on 21.04.2021 determining the total income at\nRs.11

NITIN DWARKADAS NYATI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the assessee filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the 2 assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 20.09.2022 assessing the total income at Rs.40,41,76,243/- after making addition of Rs.3,05,36,389/- on account of disallowance

M/S. THAKKER DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

3) of the Act. He, however, accentuated the fact that ITA No.322/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 & ‘20 Others’ Sixsigma Medicare and Research Ltd., & Others (21 Appeals) the instant batch of appeals involves the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued

RAJDEEP INFO TECHNO P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

3) of the Act. He, however, accentuated the fact that ITA No.322/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 & ‘20 Others’ Sixsigma Medicare and Research Ltd., & Others (21 Appeals) the instant batch of appeals involves the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued

V D M-POWER P LTD,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1,, AURANGABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

3) of the Act. He, however, accentuated the fact that ITA No.322/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 & ‘20 Others’ Sixsigma Medicare and Research Ltd., & Others (21 Appeals) the instant batch of appeals involves the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued

VARAD CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,JALNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

3) of the Act. He, however, accentuated the fact that ITA No.322/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 & ‘20 Others’ Sixsigma Medicare and Research Ltd., & Others (21 Appeals) the instant batch of appeals involves the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued

RAJDEEP INFO TECHNO P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

3) of the Act. He, however, accentuated the fact that ITA No.322/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 & ‘20 Others’ Sixsigma Medicare and Research Ltd., & Others (21 Appeals) the instant batch of appeals involves the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued

VARAD CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,JALNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

3) of the Act. He, however, accentuated the fact that ITA No.322/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 & ‘20 Others’ Sixsigma Medicare and Research Ltd., & Others (21 Appeals) the instant batch of appeals involves the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued

THE RESIDENCY CLUB,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, , KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

3) of the Act. He, however, accentuated the fact that ITA No.322/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 & ‘20 Others’ Sixsigma Medicare and Research Ltd., & Others (21 Appeals) the instant batch of appeals involves the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued

SEEMA SANTOSH GHONE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

3) of the Act. He, however, accentuated the fact that ITA No.322/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 & ‘20 Others’ Sixsigma Medicare and Research Ltd., & Others (21 Appeals) the instant batch of appeals involves the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued

SEEMA SANTOSH GHONE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

3) of the Act. He, however, accentuated the fact that ITA No.322/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 & ‘20 Others’ Sixsigma Medicare and Research Ltd., & Others (21 Appeals) the instant batch of appeals involves the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued

ZAWARE CREATIVE ENTERPRISES P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

3) of the Act. He, however, accentuated the fact that ITA No.322/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 & ‘20 Others’ Sixsigma Medicare and Research Ltd., & Others (21 Appeals) the instant batch of appeals involves the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued