DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

disallowance made on account of profits on sale/redemption of investments. The relevant facts are that as a part of General Insurance business, the assessee is mandated by the Insurance Act, 1951 and IRDA to make investments in specified securities. During the A.Y. 2007-08, the assessee has earned profits on sale/redemption of investments

SILVER OAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT-6, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

192 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the Ld. DR, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SIDDHI VINAYAK CONSTRUCTION, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 115JC of the Act. 2 3. Aggrieved with such order of the CPC, Bengaluru, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the computation of tax by applying the Alternate Minimum Tax. The assessee also took an additional ground before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the disallowance of deduction of Rs.6,12,05,192

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED , JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance erroneous. Hence, he prays for substantial question of law as formulated in the appeal memorandum (ITA 170/2019) be formulated, adjudicated and answered in favour of assessee. 5. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records in general and order passed by tribunal in particular it is clearly noticeable that Clause (i) of section 92BA

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JALNA, JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance erroneous. Hence, he prays for substantial question of law as formulated in the appeal memorandum (ITA 170/2019) be formulated, adjudicated and answered in favour of assessee. 5. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records in general and order passed by tribunal in particular it is clearly noticeable that Clause (i) of section 92BA

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE vs. BHIKSHU GRANIMART, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the books of accounts, in general, and the complete cash book, in particular, were not produced by the assessee for verification during the assessment proceedings and specific finding to that effect has been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings? 11. Grounds of appeal No.1

KARMYOGI SHANKARRAOJI PATIL SSK LTD.,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 411 & 412/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2012-13 Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd., A/P. Mahatmaphulenagar, Bijwadi, Tal. Indapur, Dist. - Pune Pin – 413106 Pan: Aaaai0225N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

192/- on account of Sale of sugar at concessional rate. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law of the learned NFAC - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi, has erred in disallowing and adding back an amount of Rs.26,35,428/- on account of VSI Contribution. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances

KARMYOGI SHANKARRAOJI PATIL SSK LTD.,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 411 & 412/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2012-13 Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd., A/P. Mahatmaphulenagar, Bijwadi, Tal. Indapur, Dist. - Pune Pin – 413106 Pan: Aaaai0225N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

192/- on account of Sale of sugar at concessional rate. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law of the learned NFAC - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi, has erred in disallowing and adding back an amount of Rs.26,35,428/- on account of VSI Contribution. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed in this case is completely justified. 6.5. Thus, in the case under hands, an addition on account of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.87,64,74,079/-is being made u/s 37(1) of the Act, and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty u/s 270A(9) of misreporting of income is being initiated. Section 37. General

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed the same.  The conditions to be satisfied to claim exemption under section 54 are as under: i) the asset transferred is a residential house; ii) the asset transferred is a long-term capital asset and hence there is a long term capital gain; iii) the asset has been transferred by an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family

DILIP JAWAHARLAL VARYANI,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.643/Pun/2025 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year:2011-12 Dilip Jawaharlal Varyani, V The Dy.Commissioner Of S.No.9/2B, Cts No.905, S Income Tax, Circle-8, Vaibhav Vihar, Near Vikram Pune. Vihar, Pimpri, Pune – 411017. Pan: Acapv0521H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarad Vaze, Ca – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Irs–Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.06.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.03.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 26.03.2014. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.643/PUN/2025[A] “1. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee prays to condone the delay of 192 days in filing the present appeal. An affidavit explaining the rear lo delay will

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. SAS RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (I) PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

192 to 194 of the paper book wherein the conditions of services provided by the consultant is reflected. On an examination of said agreement we note that the assessee in the capacity of consultant provide professional services in support of the Institute‟s R&D department with a condition that the consultant shall not subcontract any of consultant‟s obligations

SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

192 to 194 of the paper book wherein the conditions of services provided by the consultant is reflected. On an examination of said agreement we note that the assessee in the capacity of consultant provide professional services in support of the Institute‟s R&D department with a condition that the consultant shall not subcontract any of consultant‟s obligations

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

Section 43CA. Thus it is held that the assessee has wrongly offered the income as capital gain. This is nothing but a device to evade tax by offering income under a head where tax liability is lower. Thus capital gain worked out by the assessee at Rs.82,35,603/- is disallowed and added to business income of assessee. Penal proceedings

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

Section 43CA. Thus it is held that the assessee has wrongly offered the income as capital gain. This is nothing but a device to evade tax by offering income under a head where tax liability is lower. Thus capital gain worked out by the assessee at Rs.82,35,603/- is disallowed and added to business income of assessee. Penal proceedings

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :— b) resale price method, by which,— (i) the price at which property purchased or services obtained by the enterprise from an associated enterprise is resold or are provided

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. LALIT RAGHUNATHRAO SHINDE , PUNE

192 00\n28-4-2008 By HDFC BANK 6022\nReceipt\n22\n16 47 208 00\n30-4-2008 To DEN MANORANJAN SATELLITE PVT LTD\nJournal\n66\n14.74.725 00\n18.96,075 00\n16.85 400 00\n2.10 675 00\n18,96,075.00\n18,96,075.00\nBy\nClosing Balance\nDen Manoranjan Satelite Pvt Ltd\n93/21, KUNAL PLAZA,\nYAMUNA NAGAR,\nNIGDI-44\nMedia Content