RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowed by the assessee as per section 14A of the IT Act in the original return in earlier proceedings. We further find that the notice u/s 153A

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowed by the assessee as per section 14A of the IT Act in the original return in earlier proceedings. We further find that the notice u/s 153A

RAJDEEP BUILDCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowed by the assessee as per section 14A of the IT Act in the original return in earlier proceedings. We further find that the notice u/s 153A

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

SHAMKANT KESHAV KOTKAR (PROP. NANDAN BUILDERS),PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed interest on TDS of Rs.1,189/- and added Rs.1,189/- to the returned income. Ld.AR submitted that A.Y.2017-18 was unabated assessment. Therefore, addition could have been made only based on incriminating documents. Since there were no incriminating documents for A.Y.2017-18, Assessing Officer has not made any addition. Pr.CIT issued

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

153A\nor section 153C, as the case may be, as they stood immediately before the\ncommencement of the Finance Act, 2021. As per the old provisions of section\n148, the case of the assessee could not have been reopened beyond four years from\nthe end of the relevant assessment year since there was no allegation of any failure

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

disallowance of interest expenditure. He held that the reopening was beyond\nthe provisions of section 149. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld.\nCIT(A) / NFAC on this issue also being in accordance with law has to be accepted\nand the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue have to be dismissed.\n17.\nThe Ld. Counsel

SHREE SHIV SAHYADRI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shree Shiv Sahyadri Nagari V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Pathanstha S Ward-7(3), Pune. Maryadit, Sai Park Road, Dighi, Pune – 411015. Pan: Aaeas1417N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak Sasar – Ar Revenue By Smt. Shabana Parveen – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.06.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.15,60,115/- Claimed By The Appellant U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Alternatively, The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant From The Investments In A Co-Operative Bank Is Also Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant Crave Leave To Add, Delete, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw All Or Any One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com 468 (Chandigarh - Trib.), the ITAT held that the enabling provisions of subclause (v) of section 143(1) providing for disallowance

DM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOLHAPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.282 To 285/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10

section 153A assessments completed in furtherance to the search in issue dated 25-08-2011. Both the learned lower authorities admittedly hold that the said identical quantum disallowance

DM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOLHAPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.282 To 285/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10

section 153A assessments completed in furtherance to the search in issue dated 25-08-2011. Both the learned lower authorities admittedly hold that the said identical quantum disallowance

DM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOLHAPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.282 To 285/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10

section 153A assessments completed in furtherance to the search in issue dated 25-08-2011. Both the learned lower authorities admittedly hold that the said identical quantum disallowance

DM CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOLHAPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.282 To 285/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10

section 153A assessments completed in furtherance to the search in issue dated 25-08-2011. Both the learned lower authorities admittedly hold that the said identical quantum disallowance

AJINKYA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SEVAK SAH. PATSANSTHA, MARYADIT,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

153A. In the case of\nLanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT\n[2023] 146 taxmann.com 468 (Chandigarh - Trib.), the ITAT\nheld that the enabling provisions of sub-clause (v) of section\n143(1) providing for disallowance

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE

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

disallowance of expenses incurred for unrestricted\neducational grant provided to IFMER, by holding that the said grants were\nutilized for the purpose of providing freebies to the healthcare professionals\nsuch as travel, stay, etc. which are prohibited as per The Indian Medical\nCouncil (Professional Conduct. Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (MCI\nRegulations) and not deductible under Explanation 1 to section

SIDDHESHWAR INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Siddheshwar Industries Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd., 2(2), Pune. Plot No.A-50, H- Block, Midc, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aagcs4976E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing 09.03.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 23.10.2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. [A] 12 Has Erred By Wrongly Enhance The Amount Of Rs.2,95,00,000/- By Disallowing The Claim Of Deduction U/S 43B In Revised Return Of Income Filed U/S 153A Of The I T Act. The Aforesaid Addition Being Arbitrary, Perverse, Based On Surmises & Conjecture

section 132(4) of the Act, wherein, it is stated that the appellant had made gross disclosure of Rs.10,72,84,798/- which inter-alia include disallowance of statutory dues u/s 43B of the Act. 4 In the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A

VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

153A, therefore, penalty is leviable. We do not accept this proposition of the Assessing Officer. This amount, in our opinion, is an income voluntarily disclosed by the assessee to overcome omission, if any. However, no such omission or error was found by the Assessing Officer. Since assessee has not paid tax on the amount disclosed before the Settlement Commission

DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

153A, therefore, penalty is leviable. We do not accept this proposition of the Assessing Officer. This amount, in our opinion, is an income voluntarily disclosed by the assessee to overcome omission, if any. However, no such omission or error was found by the Assessing Officer. Since assessee has not paid tax on the amount disclosed before the Settlement Commission

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

153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the Assessing Officer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the matter for determination under

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