M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

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

1) of section 149. He\nsubmitted that clause (b) provides that the notice can be issued by the Assessing\nOfficer if three years but not more than 10 years have elapsed only if the Assessing\nOfficer has in his possession books of accounts or other documents or evidence\nwhich reveal that the income chargeable to tax in the form

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

disallowance of deduction claimed under\nsections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID\nor section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond\nthe due date specified under sub-section (1) of\nsection 139\"\n6. Given that there is no specific requirement in section 10AA\nto file the return of income within the due date

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

disallowance of deduction claimed under\nsections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID\nor section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond\nthe due date specified under sub-section (1) of\nsection 139\"\n\n6. Given that there is no specific requirement in section 10AA\nto file the return of income within the due date

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 149(1)(b) of the I T Act, 1961.\nSd/-\n(Naganath B Pasale, IRS)\nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Circle-1(1), Pune\"\n4.\nAccordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2018. The\nassessee in response to the same vide letter dated 11.09.2018 requested the\nAssessing Officer to consider the return of income

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

section 149(1)(b) of the I T Act, 1961.\nSd/-\n(Naganath B Pasale, IRS)\nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Circle-1(1), Pune\"\n4.\nAccordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2018. The\nassessee in response to the same vide letter dated 11.09.2018 requested the\nAssessing Officer to consider the return of income

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub- section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed." 5.6 Thus, when the appellant has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars, conditions laid down in Explanation-1 (supra

KAMAL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD.,ALIBAG vs. ITO, WARD-3, PANVEL, PANVEL

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

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

149(1)(b) of the Act. While disposing the objections raised, the Ld. AO did not properly consider and discuss about the proportionate deduction available and also did not properly rebut the objection about the fact that income alleged to have escaped assessment was not in the nature of Asset. Accordingly, the Ld. AO proceeded to pass the order

KAMAL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD.,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD-3, PANVEL, PANVEL

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

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

149(1)(b) of the Act. While disposing the objections raised, the Ld. AO did not properly consider and discuss about the proportionate deduction available and also did not properly rebut the objection about the fact that income alleged to have escaped assessment was not in the nature of Asset. Accordingly, the Ld. AO proceeded to pass the order

ALNESH MOHAMADAKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

b) of the Act on account of interest paid on housing loan\namounting to Rs.2 lakh resulting in loss of Rs.2 lakh which has been set off against\nthe other income of the previous year. He, therefore, asked the assessee to furnish\nevidence in respect of housing loan availed, copy of the loan account statement and\nthe certificate from

DESAI INFRA PROJECTS(I) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

149 pages. Reliance also placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Karan Sanran Associates v. PCIT in ITA No. 791/PUN/2024 dated 09/09/2024 and another decision of the coordinate bench of Surat Tribunal in the case of D.V. Properties (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT [2023] 155 taxmann.com 119 (Surat-Trib.). 8. On the other hand, ld.DR vehemently

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) and the\ndisallowance of depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not\nin appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same.\n9.\nSo far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/-\nis concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part