DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the Assessing Officer was not accepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect. Further, while recording such a satisfaction, the nature of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). The term "business" used in sub-sec.(5) section 801A in our humble opinion is confined to the independent undertaking and cannot get merged with the other businesses. In Sec. 80IA(2), for claiming deduction undertaking" or "Enterprise" as such is to be considered. Sec 80LAC) is charging sections

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) and the\ndisallowance of depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not\nin appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same.\n9.\nSo far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/-\nis concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part

SUNITA SURESH JADHAV,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.112/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314 has taken suo motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of COVID-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that could be faced by the litigants across the country and extended the time limit for filing of the appeals. I, therefore condone

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

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

206 pages and also relied\non the following decisions :\n1. Shri Jairam Education Society Vs. PCIT – ITA Nos.90 & 548/Ind/2019,\ndated 13.10.2021\n2. CIT (Central) Vs. Shikshan Prasarak JMandali (2017) 86 taxmjann.com 7\n(Bombay)\n3. CIT(Exemptions), Pune Vs. Audyogik Shikshan Mandal (2019) 101\ntaxmann.com 247 (Bombay)\n4. Maa Jagat Janani Seva Trust Vs. CIT(E) – ITA No.248/CTK/2023, dated\n16.07.2024

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). The term "business" used In sub-sec.(5) section 80IA in our humble opinion is confined to the independent undertaking and cannot get merged with the other businesses. In Sec. 80IA(2), for claiming deduction "undertaking" or "Enterprise" as such is to be considered. Sec.801A(2) is charging sections

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). The term "business" used In sub-sec.(5) section 80IA in our humble opinion is confined to the independent undertaking and cannot get merged with the other businesses. In Sec. 80IA(2), for claiming deduction "undertaking" or "Enterprise" as such is to be considered. Sec.801A(2) is charging sections

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). The term "business" used In sub-sec.(5) section 80IA in our humble opinion is confined to the independent undertaking and cannot get merged with the other businesses. In Sec. 80IA(2), for claiming deduction "undertaking" or "Enterprise" as such is to be considered. Sec.801A(2) is charging sections

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). The term "business" used In sub-sec.(5) section 80IA in our humble opinion is confined to the independent undertaking and cannot get merged with the other businesses. In Sec. 80IA(2), for claiming deduction "undertaking" or "Enterprise" as such is to be considered. Sec.801A(2) is charging sections

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). The term "business" used In sub-sec.(5) section 80IA in our humble opinion is confined to the independent undertaking and cannot get merged with the other businesses. In Sec. 80IA(2), for claiming deduction "undertaking" or "Enterprise" as such is to be considered. Sec.801A(2) is charging sections

GALLAGHER SERVICE CENTER LLP,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

206 PAN: AAGCA 9336 A 4. 464/PUN/2021 2019-20 M/s. Goldy Precision Asstt. DIT, Stampings Pvt. Ltd. F-84/85 CPC, MIDC, Satpur, Nasik-422 007 Bangaluru PAN: AABCG 1087 B Appellant No. 1 by : Shri Ajit Korde Appellants No. 2 by : S/Shri Hemant Dagale & Shubham Kathed Appellant No. 3 by : None Appellant No. 4 by : Shri Shashank Mehta (through

GTT COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

206 PAN: AAGCA 9336 A 4. 464/PUN/2021 2019-20 M/s. Goldy Precision Asstt. DIT, Stampings Pvt. Ltd. F-84/85 CPC, MIDC, Satpur, Nasik-422 007 Bangaluru PAN: AABCG 1087 B Appellant No. 1 by : Shri Ajit Korde Appellants No. 2 by : S/Shri Hemant Dagale & Shubham Kathed Appellant No. 3 by : None Appellant No. 4 by : Shri Shashank Mehta (through

SANJAY MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

disallowed by the AO, the penalty shall be "three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded". In the case of amounts disclosed during the course of search, the penalty amount is only ten percent of the undisclosed income. Parliament has, therefore, given a different treatment to the latter category. At the same time, if an assessee were

SANJAY MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

disallowed by the AO, the penalty shall be "three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded". In the case of amounts disclosed during the course of search, the penalty amount is only ten percent of the undisclosed income. Parliament has, therefore, given a different treatment to the latter category. At the same time, if an assessee were

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

disallowed by the AO, the penalty shall be "three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded". In the case of amounts disclosed during the course of search, the penalty amount is only ten percent of the undisclosed income. Parliament has, therefore, given a different treatment to the latter category. At the same time, if an assessee were

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

disallowed by the AO, the penalty shall be "three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded". In the case of amounts disclosed during the course of search, the penalty amount is only ten percent of the undisclosed income. Parliament has, therefore, given a different treatment to the latter category. At the same time, if an assessee were

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

disallowed by the AO, the penalty shall be "three times the amount of tax sought to be evaded". In the case of amounts disclosed during the course of search, the penalty amount is only ten percent of the undisclosed income. Parliament has, therefore, given a different treatment to the latter category. At the same time, if an assessee were

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5,, PANVEL vs. KESHAVSMRUTI NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT. LTD,, PANVEL

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.925/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

206 ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent PAN : AAAAK7390L Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. This Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 is directed against the CIT(A) - 2, Thane’s order dated 19/03/2018 passed in case