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

3) of the Act. He, however, accentuated the fact that 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 u/s 143(1) of the Act unless a case is covered within the specific four corners of the provision

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

3) and section 154 of the Act respectively. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act in the appeal filed against section 143

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

3) and section 154 of the Act respectively. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act in the appeal filed against section 143

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

M/S. SUYOJIT INFRASTRUCTURE (BOT).,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 2,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.850 & 851/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. Suyojit Infrastructure F 1/2, Suyojit Heights, Sharanpur Road, Opp. Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422002 …. Pan: Abgfs0351P Vs. The Prl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

143(3) of the Act on 01.06.2012. The Assessing Officer while passing the said assessment order had verified the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. After elaborating on various aspects of the claim made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer in para 6.1 and para 8 of assessment order had held as under:- “6.1 Further assessee

M/S. SUYOJIT INFRASTRUCTURE (BOT).,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 2,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.850 & 851/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. Suyojit Infrastructure F 1/2, Suyojit Heights, Sharanpur Road, Opp. Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422002 …. Pan: Abgfs0351P Vs. The Prl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

143(3) of the Act on 01.06.2012. The Assessing Officer while passing the said assessment order had verified the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. After elaborating on various aspects of the claim made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer in para 6.1 and para 8 of assessment order had held as under:- “6.1 Further assessee

SHREENATH MHASKOBA SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.305/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. Karkhana Ltd., Survey No.12/2, 2Nd Floor, Meghdoot Building, Behind Bharat Petroleum Pump, Hadpasar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aahcs3018G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.D. Bhide Revenue By : Shri A. D. Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Being Aggrieved By An Order Passed U/Sec.250 By The Ld. Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred For Short As The Ld. Cit(A)) Your

143(1) becomes infructuous. In view of the same the grounds of appeal 5 raised in this appeal needs no further adjudication and appellant’s appeal is dismissed.” 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that

RAGBIRSINGH MALIKSINGH RAJPAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

disallowed some of the claims made for deduction under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, in the present facts

SHREE RAM CARGO PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(5), PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SHANKAR SHET ROAD, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1568/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Ram Cargo Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(5), 3-A & B, Archies Court, Pune Shankar Shet Road, Pune 411 037 Maharashtra Pan : Aalcs3844A Appellant Respondent

disallowance before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC but failed to succeed. The ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee on the said issue observing as follows : “6. Decision: 6.1 The appellant vide its appeal has assailed the AO for making an addition of Rs.59,86,921/- in its returned income by invoking the provisions of section 40A (3

ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRI VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

143(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, reference is being made to the facts in ITA Nos.1347/PUN/2013 & 1362/PUN/2013 relating to assessment year

MR. VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

143(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, reference is being made to the facts in ITA Nos.1347/PUN/2013 & 1362/PUN/2013 relating to assessment year

MR. VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

143(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, reference is being made to the facts in ITA Nos.1347/PUN/2013 & 1362/PUN/2013 relating to assessment year

ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRI VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

143(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, reference is being made to the facts in ITA Nos.1347/PUN/2013 & 1362/PUN/2013 relating to assessment year

MR. VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

143(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by the Revenue and assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, reference is being made to the facts in ITA Nos.1347/PUN/2013 & 1362/PUN/2013 relating to assessment year

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

143(3) r.w.s. 144B of 16 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 the Act on 16.9.2022 with a total income of Rs.128,25,28,401/- by making two disallowances in the assessment order viz. (a) disallowance of employee‘s share of provident contribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs.16,61,049/- and (b) disallowance of education cess

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 143(3), notice for reopening under material. 21. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Renu Agarwal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 578 (Allahabad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where AO disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 143(3), notice for reopening under material. 21. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Renu Agarwal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 578 (Allahabad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where AO disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 143(3), notice for reopening under material. 21. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Renu Agarwal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 578 (Allahabad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where AO disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 143(3), notice for reopening under material. 21. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Renu Agarwal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 578 (Allahabad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where AO disallowed