VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

245D(4), copy of which is placed at pages 1 to 35 of the paper book, has observed at para 10.2 of the order that there has been no attempt to conceal any material facts. The relevant observations of the Settlement Commission read as under: “10.2 We are satisfied that there has been no attempt to conceal any material facts

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Act for all the three years mainly on two grounds i.e. (a) the projects undertaken by the assessee do not fall under the category of “new infrastructure facility” as envisaged in section 80IA(4) and (b) the assessee in respect of the impugned projects acted as contractor and not as developer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Act for all the three years mainly on two grounds i.e. (a) the projects undertaken by the assessee do not fall under the category of “new infrastructure facility” as envisaged in section 80IA(4) and (b) the assessee in respect of the impugned projects acted as contractor and not as developer

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Act for all the three years mainly on two grounds i.e. (a) the projects undertaken by the assessee do not fall under the category of “new infrastructure facility” as envisaged in section 80IA(4) and (b) the assessee in respect of the impugned projects acted as contractor and not as developer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

4 reads as under;\n\"that, while adjudicating the claim for deduction under section\n36(l)(iii) of the Act the nature of expense 0- whether the expenditure was on\ncapital account or revenue account was irrelevant as the section itself\nsays that interest paid by the assessee on the capital borrowed by the\nassessee was an item of deduction