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

disallow 20% of the payments made u/s 40A(3) in the process of assessment. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 17,90,571/- and ground no.1 is decided in favour of the assessee. CIT vs Crescent Export Syndicate in ITA No. 202 of 2008 dated 30.7.2008 – Calcutta High Court “It also appears that the purchases have been held

SHRIKANT ANANTRAO ZORI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

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

section 17(3) of\nthe Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC and direct\nthe Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the\nassessee are accordingly allowed.\"\n9.\nRespectfully following the decision in the case of Ashok\nRaghunathrao Kulkarni (supra) and in the absence of any contrary\nmaterial brought on record

PARNA VASUDEVAIAH,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowed the relief under section 89 and held that the amount/ compensation received by the assessee in full and final settlement on voluntary retirement is taxable as profits in lieu of salary under the provisions of section 17(3

PARVEZ MUKHTAR KHAN,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

17(2) & Rule 3 sub-clause (10) Explanation ()(). 3 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred by not taking a balanced view by differing on the nature of the payments received from the employer, he erred in not accepting the amounts of Rs. 59,72,750/- as Capital Receipts in the same spirit as he has accepted

ASHOK RAGHUNATHRAO KULKARNI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

section 17(3) of the I T Act and is taxable on due basis or receipt basis, whichever is earlier. 4.3.4 The case laws referred by the appellant are not relevant in the case of the appellant. In the present case, as per the scheme, it is not a voluntary retirement in normal course but a scheme to retire voluntary

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowed the same by holding as under- "It would be pertinent to mention here that the above assessed loss of Rs.73,24,3051- is inclusive of Depreciation loss of Rs. 12,69,0741-. Further, under the circumstances that the return of income was not filed within the stipulated time limit as detailed in section 139(1) of the Act, only

ATUL SHASHIKANT GARBHE ,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowed as claimed in ITR. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the IT Act are being initiated separately for under-reporting of income on account of claiming wrong relief under section 89 of the I.T.Act thereby reducing the tax liability which resulted issuance of refund. Total income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Income declared as per Return Rs.82

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN MAHARASHTRA OPEN UNIVERSITY,NASHIK vs. EXEMPTION CIRCLE,A BAD, AURANGABAD

disallow the\nappellant's claim when processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act.\n7. Hence, I find no merit in the current appeal and, as a result, dismiss the\nappeal.\"\n5.\nAggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A), the assessee is in\nappeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:\n1)\nThe

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

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 claimed

NAVALMAL FIRODIA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: the learned CIT(A), the same has neither been taken note of or distinguished in any manner. Not following the binding Judicial precedent of the Jurisdictional ITAT Pune is gross impropriety in law. Ground No. 2: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”

Disallowance of Rs. 6,00,000/-. a) The learned ADDLN/JCIT (5), Delhi (CIT-A) erred in law and of facts in confirming the action of learned CPC of adding back Rs.6,00,000 to the total income of the Appellant by invoking the 2 provisions of sub clause (c) of Section 11(3) r.w.s 115BBI

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

17,230/-.\nSearch u/s 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted on 04/11/2017 in the\ncase of Ashok B Jain & Others. The case of Shri Manoj M Chhajed is one\nof the cases belonging to Ashok B Jain & Others group. During the course\nof search conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on\n04/11/2017 located

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

17,230/-.\nSearch u/s 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted on 04/11/2017 in the\ncase of Ashok B Jain & Others. The case of Shri Manoj M Chhajed is one\nof the cases belonging to Ashok B Jain & Others group. During the course\nof search conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on\n04/11/2017 located

SUHAS JAGANNATH KANASE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

3 Tax Act, 1961 disregarding the fact that the receipt was capital receipt and there is no provision to tax such receipt The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 42,11,657/- be deleted. Ground No. 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in disallowing loss

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

section 147 of the Act is clearly applicable and therefore, such reopening is not in accordance with law. 17. He accordingly submitted the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC being in accordance with law, the same should be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 18. We have heard the rival arguments made by both

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

section 12AB of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while raising the issue of challenging the powers available in section 12AB of the Act made threefold contentions and the same are :\n(a)\nthat in absence of express powers provided u/s.12AB of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s.12A of the Act, notice issued on 21.03.2023 u/s.12AB

SHRI VASUPUJYA SWAMI MAHARAJ TEMPLE TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

disallowance has been made for not applying set apart accumulation funds during F.Y. 2016-17 within the period of five years as provided u/s.11(2) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that issue in Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University Vs. CIT – ITA No.505/PUN/2025 order dated 23.06.2025 wherein

SHRI ISHWARLAL GULABCHAND VARDHAMANTAP AYAMBIL TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

disallowance has been made for not applying set apart accumulation funds during F.Y. 2016-17 within the period of five years as provided u/s.11(2) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that issue in Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University Vs. CIT – ITA No.505/PUN/2025 order dated 23.06.2025 wherein

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

3); however, denial of exemption under section 11 should be limited only to the amount which was diverted in violation of section 13(2)(b) of the Act. 17 27. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and Another vs. Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions reported