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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE vs. FERRERO INDIA PVT.LTD, PUNE

192 2. Purchase of RSA token 5,01,014 3. Reimbursement of expenses 26,21,625 4. Issue of Shares 49,68,25,000 The above transactions were reported by the assessee in Form 3CEB, which was filed along with the return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12. A.Y. 2011-12 8. The Assessee adopted Resale Price Method

KASPER PIETER TIDEMAN,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 90 of the Act would be denied. The assessee filed Form 67 before the return for the relevant AY was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act by the Ld. AO. 10. Various coordinate benches of the Tribunal have held that filing Form 67 is a procedural/directory requirement and is not a mandatory requirement. 11. We find the Hyderabad

NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. The Appellant requests the Hon'ble members a right to amend, alter, substitute or add to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal so as to allow

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

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

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

disallowance of Rs. 1 crore towards Purchase expenses 2. Difference in unsecured loan Rs.5,00,000 3. Unexplained Cash Deposit Rs.40,00,000 CITA deleted all above additions 15. He submitted that the order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed for assessment year 2013-14 on 18.02.2016 and no such additions were made. Referring to the assessment order

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