INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE vs. SHRADDHA & PRASAD JOINT VENTURE,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2665/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

Section 194C were not applicable for the purpose of TDS, without appreciating the fact that the work contract order was issued in the name of the assessee (JV) and re-allocation of the contract between the members of the JV would amount to sub-contracting. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

SATISH ISHWARDAS AGRAWAL,,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Section 194C itself does not apply in the given facts and circumstances. The impugned disallowance stands deleted thereby. The assessee succeeds in his instant former substantive ground. 4. Next comes similar 40(a)(ia) disallowance on assessee’s advertisement expenses of Rs.1,44,020/-. He first of all contended to have only claimed an amount of Rs.42,308/- wherein

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3),, PUNE vs. SUBHASH & B.T. PATIL & SONS & N.V.KHAROTE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance of payments made in violation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short). 3. The A.O during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee is a joint venture and was formed solely for the purpose of acquiring project works of construction of Jihe Kathapur Lift Irrigation

AJAY ENGINEERING & AGRI EQUIPMENT COMPANY,AURANGABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

3 4. We have heard both the sides in Virtual Court and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. Pr.CIT has invoked the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act, which pre-supposes satisfaction of the twin conditions, viz., the assessment order should be erroneous and also it should be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the above conditions

MAHAVIR ADINATH SALVE,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, SOLAPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.441/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Mahavir Adinath Salve, The Ito, Ward-1(1), Solapur. House No.930, Nagane Plot Vs Paranda Road, Barshi, . Solapur – 413411. Pan: Arxps 5761 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V L Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 15.11.2018 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Cir- 1/0804/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and find no merit in Revenue’s stand supporting the impugned disallowance. This is for the reason that the assessee has admittedly produced his sub-contractors in issue so far as section ITA No.441/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2008-09 Mahavir Adinath Salve (A) 194C

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

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

194C and 194J (as per 26AS) are more than the receipts shown in ITR 4/5/6 (service receipts as per 26AS and Total revenue from operations in P&L account). Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) along with a detailed questionnaire were issued and duly served upon the assessee

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

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

194C and 194J (as per 26AS) are more than the receipts shown in ITR 4/5/6 (service receipts as per 26AS and Total revenue from operations in P&L account). Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) along with a detailed questionnaire were issued and duly served upon the assessee

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS thereupon. 3. The assessee

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS thereupon. 3. The assessee

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS thereupon. 3. The assessee

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, (TDS),, PUNE vs. M/S. HONYWELL AUTOMATION (I) LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 ITA No.872/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2011-12 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is engaged in the business of process control and management controls on turnkey basis covering obtaining or supplying technological know

RAVI YANTRIKI UDYOG PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD (5)(4), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

194C reflected in\nForm No. 26AS and ITS Data are not offered by the assessee company in\nthe Profit and Loss Account and therefore he called for the information\nfrom Vanishka Sugar and Power Industries Ltd. u/s 133(6) vide his letter\ndated 15.11.2017. Accordingly, the Ld. AO asked the assessee to show\ncause as to why Rs.1

SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL),, NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

3) assessment dated 03.02.2014. This followed the impugned search in R.C. Bafna group of cases on 10.09.2014 leading to initiation of sec.153A proceedings against her which finally culminated in the Assessing Officer’s corresponding assessment dated 28.12.2016. This is thus a clear-cut instance of an “unabated” assessment only as on the date of the search. We make it clear