JOHN DEERE EQUIPMENT PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

Section was not applicable and hence, the grossing up of the amounts was not justified as per law. 3] The learned CIT(A) erred in enhancing the income of the appellant company by making a disallowance of Rs.1,256

E-ALLY SECURITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,RAIGAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE, PANVEL, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

Disallowance under Section 14A of Rs.2,48,85,000/- as expenses to earn exempted Dividend income of Rs.1,80,30,965/- is per se absurd and 1 378 ITR 33 2 [2018] 256

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. 14. We are conscious of the fact that Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act was amended by the Finance act, 2001 by insertion of Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. We are also conscious of the fact that

PRAJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 115JB of the Act and restricted the disallowance to Rs.30,55,256/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Act but confirmed

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

disallowed the same. 34 On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09 onwards allowed said expenditure is revenue expenditure u/s 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

RADHE RADHE LABOUR CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1589/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act. 9. The issue which arises is whether in cases picked up for limited scrutiny, can any other issue be decided without taking necessary permission from the concerned Commissioner? In this regard, first we will make reference to CBDT, which vide Instruction No.5/2016, dated 14.07.2016 had clearly pointed out that in the cases

BALKRISHNA RATHI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) at Rs.16,63,575/-, ignoring the fact that investments yielding exempt income were made out of own funds in earlier years and no borrowed funds were utilized. 4 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the year under consideration the appellant company also earned the taxable interest income and therefore

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

256 (SC) Proviso to section 13 of the I.T. Act and section 21A of the WT Act lays down that exemption will not be denied if part of the income is applied for benefit of a person referred to section 13(3) of the Act, if such use for application is in compliance to mandatory terms of the Trust which

SHAH CONSTRUCTIO,SATARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.617/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shah Construction, Vs Acit, Satara Parag, 286 2, Circle, Satara Budhwar Peth, Tal Karad, Dist Satara- 415110 Maharashtra Pan-Aaffs0461E Appellant Respondent

disallow the claim of deduction made under section 801A and there remains pending against the appellant if the same is accepted it be held accordingly. Addition of Rs. 67,25,256

NITIN BHIMSEN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 9(1), PUNE

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

Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should clearly be stamped with “AIR case.” This should be immediately brought to the notice of all the officers working in your region. Yours faithfully, i- (Ajay Goyal) Director (ITA.II)” 7. Admittedly, the necessary approval had not been taken by the AO while widening the scope of inquiry. Though

SURENDRA BHIMSEN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

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

Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should clearly be stamped with “AIR case.” This should be immediately brought to the notice of all the officers working in your region. Yours faithfully, i- (Ajay Goyal) Director (ITA.II)” 7. Admittedly, the necessary approval had not been taken by the AO while widening the scope of inquiry. Though

NILESH VASANT SHENDE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.670/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Nilesh Vasant Shende, Mzsk & Associates Chartered Accountants, Level-3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune-411 001. Pan : Anxps3098L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

section 143(2) of the Act and the CBDT Circular should not create any hurdles on the AO in matters of scrutiny assessment once notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued. Therefore, it is the case of the Ld. DR that AO has all powers to examine any issue which he deems fit despite the restrictions imposed

LOKESH SADASHIV SHETTY,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

256 (Del) for the proposition that where the guidelines are laid down for selection of cases for scrutiny and if the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny in violation of CBDT Instructions, then the assessment order has to be set aside. He further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bombay Cloth Syndicate

SHIRRAM DUDH VYAVASAYIK SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

256 (Del) for the proposition that where the guidelines are laid down for selection of cases for scrutiny and if the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny in violation of CBDT Instructions, then the assessment order has to be set aside. He further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bombay Cloth Syndicate

SHRIDATTA DUDH UTPADAK SANSTHA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

256 (Del) for the proposition that where the guidelines are laid down for selection of cases for scrutiny and if the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny in violation of CBDT Instructions, then the assessment order has to be set aside. He further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bombay Cloth Syndicate

NAZARE VIKAS KARYAKARI SEVA SHAKARI SOCIETY LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

256 (Del) for the proposition that where the guidelines are laid down for selection of cases for scrutiny and if the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny in violation of CBDT Instructions, then the assessment order has to be set aside. He further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bombay Cloth Syndicate

SHRIRAM SAHAKAI DUDH UTPADAK SANSTHA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, PANDHARPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

256 (Del) for the proposition that where the guidelines are laid down for selection of cases for scrutiny and if the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny in violation of CBDT Instructions, then the assessment order has to be set aside. He further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bombay Cloth Syndicate

SHRI.DHAWAL SINGH MOHITE PATIL SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANSTHA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

256 (Del) for the proposition that where the guidelines are laid down for selection of cases for scrutiny and if the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny in violation of CBDT Instructions, then the assessment order has to be set aside. He further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bombay Cloth Syndicate

BHAGWANDADA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANSTHA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SOLAPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

256 (Del) for the proposition that where the guidelines are laid down for selection of cases for scrutiny and if the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny in violation of CBDT Instructions, then the assessment order has to be set aside. He further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Bombay Cloth Syndicate