DESIMUS FINANCIALS LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Desimus Financials Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Moga Road, Opp. Punjab Kesari, Pune Bagha Purana, Dist. Maoga, Punjab – 142 038 Pan Aaack9547K Appellant Respondent

disallowance on two counts, firstly, by considering that the first proviso to section 201(1) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-07-2012 and hence interest for the 5 Decimus Financials Limited period from 01-04-2012 to 30-06-2012 was uncovered by the proviso. The second reasoning of the AO was that the assessee

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHRI VIJAYRAJ UTTAMCHAND MUNDADA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

disallowed the assessee’s claim of gift in contemplation of death as exempt from income on following counts : i. The assessee failed to produce Will. ii. The assessee has received consideration/gift from Smt. Vasundhara D. Shirole, sister of deceased Smt. Pushpa D Shirole, therefore, the amount cannot be said to have been received in contemplation of death. iii. FDRs

M/S. T - 3 ENERGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.826/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., D-Ii/65-1, Midc, Telco Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 …. Pan: Aacct9805F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune

disallowed the claim of deduction of ₹ 31,22,300/- on the ground that the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act have not been complied with by the assessee. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration declared total income of ₹ 1,63,82,191

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

disallowance is that the payment mentioned against the Truck number on a single day on few occasions is more than Rs.35,000/- and for this reason section 40A(3) of the Act has been invoked. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the case is squarely covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Excel

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

disallowance to Rs.2,24,191/- as against Rs.1,25,51,607/- proposed by the Assessing Officer in the remand report by observing as under: “6….. I have carefully considered the appellant submissions, judicial pronouncement quoted by the Appellant and Assessment Order. It is a fact on the record that the Ld. Assessing Officer has made the Addition of Rs.4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. PATSON AGRO EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE CITY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

disallowance from Rs.5,87,62,191/- to Rs.18,44,764/- by observing as under: “6.2 Findings and Decision:- I have carefully considered the facts of the case as well as submissions filed by the appellant. I find force in the arguments of the Appellant. The section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06

191/-. On the basis of the sustained amount of transfer pricing addition, the AO imposed penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,48,40,838/-. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the same. The Revenue has come up in appeal against such deletion. 3. We have heard both the sides through Virtual Court and gone through the relevant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL,, PANVEL vs. NITIN NARAYAN ADHIKARI,, RAIGAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

disallowance on account of the assessee’s failure in explaining the compelling circumstances in light of Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules. He also quoted Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh V/s ITO (1991) 191 ITR 667(SC) that purpose of the impugned statutory provision is not to regulate genuine business transactions but to prevent use of unaccounted money as well

SHIVAJI RAMDAS SAKHARE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awnps8232K बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 2(4), Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 54F deducting disallowance of Rs. 93,05,492/- as follows. “4. The only issue raised in the sole ground of appeal is against disallowance of deduction claimed by the appellant u/s. 54F of the Act. Facts in this regard are that the appellant during the year sold an immovable property co-owned by him. His share in the sale

M/S. KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

191/- being disallowance made u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D, without giving the AO opportunity to remove any defect, if at all caused by non-mention of the satisfaction. Any such requirement was wrongly read by the Tribunal ? 3…. 4. Regarding question no.(c):- (a) In its return of income, the respondent made a suo-moto disallowance of Rs.15.21 lakhs being

GOVIND RAMPRASHAD BAHETI,,HINGOLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, PARBHANI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1395/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Govind Ramprashad Baheti, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), C/O Bansilal Kabra, Parbhani. Advocate, 1St Floor, Ambika Market, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Airpb1246N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Kabra Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Cit(A)-1, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 27.06.2018 Passed In Case No. Abd/Cit(A)/335/2013-14, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

section 40A(3) cash payments disallowance involving twin parities, namely, M/s Subhash Fertilizer Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shriram Fertilizers, Nanded to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.4,85,000/-; respectively. 3. Mr. Jasnani vehemently argued in light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh vs. ITO [1991] 191

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

The appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purpose

disallowance thereon as per\nbelow\nSno.\nParticulars\nSez Unit T8 Sez Unit T9 Total\nA\nProfit\nof\nthe 7,51,71,191\n11,05,38,142 | 18,57,09,333\nundertaking\nB\nTotal Turnover\n26,14,36,572 | 79,01,66,238\n1,05,16,02,810\nC\nExport Turnover

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

disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made

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

disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made

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

disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made

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

disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made

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

disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made

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

disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made