INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowed. 11. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A). 12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowed. 11. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A). 12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowed. 11. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A). 12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE vs. SANDVIK COROMANT INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1072/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Dy.Commissioner Of Sandvik Coromant India Pvt. Income Tax, Circle-8, Vs Ltd., Pune. Mumbai Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411012. Pan: Aaccs6638K Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection No.7/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sandvik Coromant India The Dy.Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. Mumbai Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411012. Pan: Aaccs6638K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Patakh – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 15/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Ita 1072/Pn/2023 Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Co No.7/Pun/2024 Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] U/S.250 Of The Act, For A.Y.2018-19

Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that in an appeal against an order of assessment, the CIT(A) may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in not disposing the same in the manner as provided in Sec.251(1

SATYAM TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

disallowance of index cost of acquisition is bad in law and therefore deserves to be allowed.” 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (“DTVSV Act, 2020”) has been rejected by the Income Tax Department. Admittedly, there was a lapse on the part of the assessee to inform

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the audit report in Form 10B was filed by the assessee beyond the prescribed due date of filing of return of income for the relevant AY 2018-19 under consideration. The Ld. AR submitted that both the return of income and Form 10B were

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the audit report in Form 10B was filed by the assessee beyond the prescribed due date of filing of return of income for the relevant AY 2018-19 under consideration. The Ld. AR submitted that both the return of income and Form 10B were

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the audit report in Form 10B was filed by the assessee beyond the prescribed due date of filing of return of income for the relevant AY 2018-19 under consideration. The Ld. AR submitted that both the return of income and Form 10B were

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,PUNE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowing the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the audit report in Form 10B was filed by the assessee beyond the prescribed due date of filing of return of income for the relevant AY 2018-19 under consideration. The Ld. AR submitted that both the return of income and Form 10B were

OM J J SWA VISHWASHANTI DHAM NIRMAN SANSTHA,VERUL vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

disallowing the\nclaim for exemption under section 11 of the Act, even though the\nappellant was a registered charitable institution under section 12AA of\nthe Act and had duly applied the income towards its charitable\nobjectives.\nCapital Nature of Donations - Not Taxable:\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without\nprejudice to any other ground

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

251/- on Goodwill of Rs.\n59,95,13,004/- under the provisions of Section 32(1) of the Act. The Ld. AO\ncompleted the assessment by passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of\nthe Act dated 20.12.2018 disallowing

EPRSS PREPAID RECHARGE SERVICES INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.828/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Eprss Prepaid Recharge Services India P. Ltd., 207, Kpct Commercial Complex, Fatima Nagar, Wanowrie, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411013 …. Pan:Aabce5025H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward – 1(4), Pune

disallowance made by Assessing Officer was upheld. 7. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee was engaged mainly in distributorship of recharges. He referred to the amended definition of section 9(1)(via) of the Act and also Explanation 2(iva) and pointed

EPRSS PREPAID RECHARGE SERVICES INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.828/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Eprss Prepaid Recharge Services India P. Ltd., 207, Kpct Commercial Complex, Fatima Nagar, Wanowrie, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411013 …. Pan:Aabce5025H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward – 1(4), Pune

disallowance made by Assessing Officer was upheld. 7. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee was engaged mainly in distributorship of recharges. He referred to the amended definition of section 9(1)(via) of the Act and also Explanation 2(iva) and pointed

COPPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 34. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee during the year under consideration had claimed deduction of ₹ 3.89 crores under section 35(2AB) of the Act being 150% of expenditure incurred of ₹ 2.594 crores. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order had short granted deduction under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 34. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee during the year under consideration had claimed deduction of ₹ 3.89 crores under section 35(2AB) of the Act being 150% of expenditure incurred of ₹ 2.594 crores. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order had short granted deduction under section

MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

251 - Investments- Additions Manpower Cost 6,91,701 - - - Sub Total (A) 4,98,21,138 3,39,60,518 1,58,60,621 9,96,42,277 Considered in CWIP Development Cost 5,47,24,293 5,47,24,293 - - Tangible 6,800 - 6,800 - Investments Salary-Design 1,18,45,866 - 1,18,45,866 - Travel Expenses

DCIT,CIRCLE-8 , PUNE vs. MAHALE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

251 - Investments- Additions Manpower Cost 6,91,701 - - - Sub Total (A) 4,98,21,138 3,39,60,518 1,58,60,621 9,96,42,277 Considered in CWIP Development Cost 5,47,24,293 5,47,24,293 - - Tangible 6,800 - 6,800 - Investments Salary-Design 1,18,45,866 - 1,18,45,866 - Travel Expenses

DCIT CIRCLE 8 , PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

251 - Investments- Additions Manpower Cost 6,91,701 - - - Sub Total (A) 4,98,21,138 3,39,60,518 1,58,60,621 9,96,42,277 Considered in CWIP Development Cost 5,47,24,293 5,47,24,293 - - Tangible 6,800 - 6,800 - Investments Salary-Design 1,18,45,866 - 1,18,45,866 - Travel Expenses