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

ii) the 1st day of April, 2018, any deduction is admissible under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section

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

disallowed thereby resulting such profit cannot be considered u/s 80IA(4) of the Act and deduction u/s 80IA(4) reduced to Rs.1,38,25,597/- instead of Rs.1,42,40,062/-. (wrongly numbered) 6.1 Further the partnership firm fulfills all these criteria’s provided u/s. 80IA(4)(i)(a)&(b) of the Act, and therefore the said project is eligible

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

disallowed thereby resulting such profit cannot be considered u/s 80IA(4) of the Act and deduction u/s 80IA(4) reduced to Rs.1,38,25,597/- instead of Rs.1,42,40,062/-. (wrongly numbered) 6.1 Further the partnership firm fulfills all these criteria’s provided u/s. 80IA(4)(i)(a)&(b) of the Act, and therefore the said project is eligible

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

ii) The South India Club, New Delhi v ITO, Ward Exemption 2(3), New Delhi [ITA No. 354/Del/2024, Delhi Tribunal, Date of judgement-22.05.2024], it has been held that doctrine of merger applies when regular assessment order u/s 143(3) is passed subsequent to summary assessment u/s 143(1) and in that situation, it is only the assessment order

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

disallowing claim for exemption of Rs.3,06,71,330 u/s 54F of the IT Act on grounds that the assessee had invested sale proceeds of capital assets under the Capital Gains Account Scheme beyond the due date of return u/s 139(1). The appellant pleads that the investment made on 25.09.2007 was within the due date of filing of return

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

disallowed under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of section 40 of the Act. The relevant part of Hon‘ble Supreme Court judgment is as under: 7. The above legislative history of the Finance Acts, as also the practice, would appear to indicate that the term ―Income tax‖ as employed in Section 2 includes surcharge as also the special

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

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

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

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

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

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 exemption claimed by assessee under section

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

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 exemption claimed by assessee under section

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

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

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

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 exemption claimed by assessee under section

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

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 exemption claimed by assessee under section

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

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 exemption claimed by assessee under section

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

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 exemption claimed by assessee under section