RAMESH HARIBHAU GAWALI,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

244 (Visakhatatnam) it was held by Special Bench of ITAT, Vishakhapatnam, that the provisions of section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act would apply only to the amount which remained payable at the end of the relevant financial year and could not be invoked to disallow

DR. PRATAP PANDHIRANATH PATIL,PUNE vs. PCIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

244/- as ‘Income from Other Sources’ rather than invoking section 68 of the Act for unexplained Agricultural Receipts at Rs.38,46,424/- and also erred in invoking section 69C of the Act for unexplained Agricultural Expenses at Rs.4,36,820/-. 8. In the revisionary proceedings, assessee again furnished the details stating that ld. AO has called for all the relevant

ABIL REALTY PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 1(1), Pune Abil House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 Pan: Aaica8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R

244/- as made by the Assessing Officer. 13 18. In his alternate contention, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assuming without admitting that the advance received from M/s. Shashbindu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. is not received towards proposed sale of land, still the said advance has been received in the normal course of business as part of running account

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

disallowed a sum of Rs.1,09,33,329/- for the assessment year 2007-08 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4 Kumar Kondiba Shingare 7. Aggrieved with the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed the appeals before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed a written submission explaining that

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

disallowed a sum of Rs.1,09,33,329/- for the assessment year 2007-08 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4 Kumar Kondiba Shingare 7. Aggrieved with the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed the appeals before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed a written submission explaining that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

disallowed a sum of Rs.1,09,33,329/- for the assessment year 2007-08 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4 Kumar Kondiba Shingare 7. Aggrieved with the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed the appeals before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed a written submission explaining that

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

disallowed a sum of Rs.1,09,33,329/- for the assessment year 2007-08 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4 Kumar Kondiba Shingare 7. Aggrieved with the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed the appeals before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed a written submission explaining that

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

disallowed a sum of Rs.1,09,33,329/- for the assessment year 2007-08 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4 Kumar Kondiba Shingare 7. Aggrieved with the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed the appeals before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed a written submission explaining that

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1650/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Midc, Kharadi Knowledge Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kharadi, Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabce4323Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(2), Pune

section 37(1) of the Act. Where the cost debited by the assessee has been recovered from its principal with mark-up and taxed in the hands of the assessee, there is no loss to the Revenue and in any case the disallowance of the expenditure would lead to a situation wherein on one hand there is disallowance

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD (PUNE MUMBAI REALTY P LTD MERGED WITH RIVER VIEW PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. MERGED WITH KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

244/- paid to L. K. Jain (HUF) on the ground that the assessee company had failed to prove that any services were rendered by the said entity. 6] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of anneal.” 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD (PUNE MUMBAI REALTY P LTD MERGED WITH RIVER VIEW PROPERTIES PVT. LTD MERGED WITH KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT P LTD), ,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 357/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Kumar Urban Development Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., (Pune Mumbai Reality Private Limited Merged With River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. & River View Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd.) 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Center, Cts No.29, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001. Pan : Aadcp8622M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri B. Koteswararao Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 & 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.05.2017 & 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.1323/Pun/2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 For Adjudication.

244/- paid to L. K. Jain (HUF) on the ground that the assessee company had failed to prove that any services were rendered by the said entity. 6] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of anneal.” 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated

SAKAL PAPER LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIR.-6,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2008 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-6, Pune …. Vs. Sakal Papers Ltd., 595, Budhawar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaccs7605Q

disallowance of legal expenses of ₹ 37,10,056/-. 32. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee fairly pointed out that the said issue stands covered against the assessee by the order of Tribunal in earlier years i.e. assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. 33. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below

ACIT, CIR.-6., PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPER LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2008 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-6, Pune …. Vs. Sakal Papers Ltd., 595, Budhawar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaccs7605Q

disallowance of legal expenses of ₹ 37,10,056/-. 32. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee fairly pointed out that the said issue stands covered against the assessee by the order of Tribunal in earlier years i.e. assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. 33. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below

WARANA INDUSTRIES LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1284/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Warana Industries Limited, The Acit, Circle-1, Gat No.795, Tatyasaheb Kore Vs Kolhapur. Nager, Chikurde Road, A/P: Warnanagar, Tal.Panhala, Kolhapur – 416113. Pan: Aaacw 1694 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranikh – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For The A.Y. 2006-07 Dated 16.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.05.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowed it. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 23.05.2014. ITA No.1284/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2006-07 Warana Industries Limited [A] 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The assessee raised a legal ground before the ld.CIT(A) that the notice under section 274 r.w.s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) in line with outcome of appeal of assessee pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in proceedings u/s. 201 of the Act. Accordingly, ground No. 3 raised in appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. The assessee has also raised additional ground of appeal as alternate to ground raised in ground

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) in line with outcome of appeal of assessee pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in proceedings u/s. 201 of the Act. Accordingly, ground No. 3 raised in appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. The assessee has also raised additional ground of appeal as alternate to ground raised in ground

TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) in line with outcome of appeal of assessee pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in proceedings u/s. 201 of the Act. Accordingly, ground No. 3 raised in appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. The assessee has also raised additional ground of appeal as alternate to ground raised in ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

244 Guj.), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that the unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to AY 1997-08 to AY 2000-01 would be dealt in accordance with the provision of section 3 (2) of the Act, as amended by Finance Act, 2001,and therefore would be allowed to be carried forward and set off against the profits