KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

199; 64. 2A recent Hon'ble Supreme court judgment in the case of PCIT vs Wipro, 446 ITR 1 (SC) has clarified guidelines with respect to claim admissibility in revised return. Extracts of the judgment is presented as below for ready reference “Also In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming

SHREE ASHTVINAYAK GLASS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS P. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

NETSCOUT SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

ASHOKA BUILDCON LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS P. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

GURU ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

BALIRAJA SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

ASHOKA BUILDCON LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

M/S ENERTECH UPS P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

B S ENTERPRISES,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

HYT ENGINEERING CO P LTD, ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. GRIHUM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowed by way of an intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. He submitted that following the same analogy whether 7 CO No.39/PUN/2024 indirect items can be considered as part of the gross turnover is a highly debatable issue and therefore, the CPC has no power to make any such prima facie adjustment. The Ld. Counsel

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act, the pharmaceutical company i.e\nEmcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. has routed the expense of providing of\nfreebies through the assessee trust as it enables the Emcure\nPharmaceuticals Ltd. to claim an otherwise inadmissible expense as\ndeduction. Such act of the assessee trust of carrying the activity of\nproviding freebies at the behest of the pharmaceutical

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

199 ITR 67. It was held by the Supreme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to attract taxability under Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

199 and Allahabad High Court in the case of Oxford Academy for\nCareer Development v. Chief CIT [20091.315 ITR 382\n29. All the three High Courts after examining the issue, in the light of the\nobject of Section 12A of the Act and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act\nheld that the order of the CIT passed under Section

M/S GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D at ₹3,82,623, and assessed the income at ₹1,83,60,35,564. 5. Subsequently, ld. PCIT (Central) invoked provisions of section 263 of the Act regarding the claim of depreciation on intangible assets at ₹1,86,95,184 giving reference of the generation of goodwill at the time of amalgamation

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

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

199 ITR 765 (Raj). 5.1 It is noted that, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of JKs Employees Welfare Fund (supra) considered what amounts to a prima facie adjustment by observing as under: “A bare perusal of section 143(1)(a) contemplate that the ITO has to accept the return as it is and in the proviso, three exceptions