DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. SECO TOOLS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objections of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

disallowed as non business expenditure. This was the reason recorded against escapement of assessment within meaning of clause (b) of section 147

M/S. SHI vs. HAKTI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,OSMANABADVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, NANDED

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shivshakti Shetkari Vs. Dcit, Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Circle-3, Limited, Nanded Washi Dist., Osmanabad. Pan : Aacts1082Q Appellant Respondent

disallowance or addition pertaining to the sole reason of reopening. That being the case, we quote CIT vs. Jet Airways (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) that such reopening is not sustainable in law as follows: “5. The condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 147

MADHURI DHANANJAUY MARATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1639 & 1640/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Smt. Madhuri Dhananjay Marathe, 3, Yashodhara Apartment, Chinchkhed Road, At Post Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka- Niphad, Nashik Pan : Amjpm4024B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee vide letter dated 26.12.2014 stated that the return of income filed on 10.03.2011 may be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. In the said return of income, the assessee had shown income of Rs.1,78,172/-. The assessment

MADHURI DHANANJAUY MARATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1639 & 1640/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Smt. Madhuri Dhananjay Marathe, 3, Yashodhara Apartment, Chinchkhed Road, At Post Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka- Niphad, Nashik Pan : Amjpm4024B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee vide letter dated 26.12.2014 stated that the return of income filed on 10.03.2011 may be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. In the said return of income, the assessee had shown income of Rs.1,78,172/-. The assessment

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

147 of the Act on 26.03.2018 by recording the\nfollowing reasons:\n“02. In response to notices issued, Shri H.G. Sharma, CA Authorized\nRepresentatives attended from time to time and explained the return. During the\ncourse of assessment proceeding, the assessee has requested to provide the\nreasons for reopening of the case u/s 148 of the Act. The reasons recorded

JOHN DEERE EQUIPMENT PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

section 147 of the Act in order to make the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The next

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

section 147 of the Act in order to make the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The next

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

147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.66,20,000/- on account of violation of provisions of section

SUNAND CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowance in respect of interest expenses for non-deduction of TDS if any needs to be restricted to 30% of the expenditure in the light of the retrospective amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The above grounds may be allowed to be altered, amended, modified, deleted etc in the interest of natural justice

SUNANDA CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowance in respect of interest expenses for non-deduction of TDS if any needs to be restricted to 30% of the expenditure in the light of the retrospective amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The above grounds may be allowed to be altered, amended, modified, deleted etc in the interest of natural justice

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

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

section that the reasons which induced the CIT to accord sanction to proceed u/s 34 must also be communicated to the assessee and "the requirement regarding communication of the reasons to the Commissioner is, in our opinion, intended to safeguard the Interests of the assessee against any hasty action on the part of the ITO u/s 34 or an action

M/S LORGAN LIFESTYLE LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD14(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

section 147 of the Act and issued notice u/s.148 of the Act after taking prior approval of the competent authority. Subsequently, notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued and the assessee filed the return in compliance to notice u/s.148 of the Act on 07.12.2019 declaring loss of (-) Rs.12,41,39,343/-. Ld. AO during the course of scrutiny proceedings

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on the basis of statement of Central Excise Department. The ITA Nos.610 to 614/PUN/2017 3 Chandrakant R Gaikwad assessee is also aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on the basis of statement of Central Excise Department. The ITA Nos.610 to 614/PUN/2017 3 Chandrakant R Gaikwad assessee is also aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on the basis of statement of Central Excise Department. The ITA Nos.610 to 614/PUN/2017 3 Chandrakant R Gaikwad assessee is also aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on the basis of statement of Central Excise Department. The ITA Nos.610 to 614/PUN/2017 3 Chandrakant R Gaikwad assessee is also aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on the basis of statement of Central Excise Department. The ITA Nos.610 to 614/PUN/2017 3 Chandrakant R Gaikwad assessee is also aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance

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

147 of the Act. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, original assessment in the case was completed under section 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

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

147 of the Act. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, original assessment in the case was completed under section 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