DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

disallowance u/s.14A of the Act for the\nyear under consideration.\n11.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and\ncircumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject no\nadjustment whatsoever can be made to its \"book profits\" while\ncomputing its income u/s.115JB of the Act and the stand taken by\nthe Ld. AO/Hon'ble_DRP in this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHOKA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross-

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

260A of the Act before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 4. The appellant craves to add, amend or delete any of the above grounds. 4. The assessee in C.O.No.114/PUN/2017 has raised the following Cross-Objections: “The learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the ground Nos.1, 2 and 3 relating to the validity of the Notice issued under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHOKA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross-

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

260A of the Act before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 4. The appellant craves to add, amend or delete any of the above grounds. 4. The assessee in C.O.No.114/PUN/2017 has raised the following Cross-Objections: “The learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the ground Nos.1, 2 and 3 relating to the validity of the Notice issued under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHOKA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross-

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

260A of the Act before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 4. The appellant craves to add, amend or delete any of the above grounds. 4. The assessee in C.O.No.114/PUN/2017 has raised the following Cross-Objections: “The learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the ground Nos.1, 2 and 3 relating to the validity of the Notice issued under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ASHOKA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD.,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross-

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

260A of the Act before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 4. The appellant craves to add, amend or delete any of the above grounds. 4. The assessee in C.O.No.114/PUN/2017 has raised the following Cross-Objections: “The learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the ground Nos.1, 2 and 3 relating to the validity of the Notice issued under

GURUDATTA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANTHA MARYADIT,AT POST VANI, DINDORI, NASHIK vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.502/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gurudatta Gramin Bigarsheti V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1(1), Nashik. At & Post: Vani, Dindori, Nashik – 422101. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaag4929K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe –Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2025

disallowed deduction of Rs.12,04,748/-. The AO has noted in the Assessment Order that Assessee has earned Interest of Rs.12,04,748/- from The Nasik Merchants Co Operative Bank Ltd. The AO held that the Interest of Rs.12,04,748/- is not eligible for deduction u/s 80P as it has been earned from a Co-operative Bank

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowed the excess claim of capital expenditure of Rs.1,42,54,268/-. In our considered view there is no intentional misrepresentation of expenditure as alleged. By no stretch of imagination it can be said to be a case of attempted tax evasion as even after revision of computation, the taxable income remained Nil which is same as returned income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowed the excess claim of capital expenditure of Rs.1,42,54,268/-. In our considered view there is no intentional misrepresentation of expenditure as alleged. By no stretch of imagination it can be said to be a case of attempted tax evasion as even after revision of computation, the taxable income remained Nil which is same as returned income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. PUNE CANTONMENT SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 260A of the Act. After discussing various judgments of the Supreme Court, the Karnataka High Court held as under :- "From the aforesaid judgments of the apex court, now it is clear that a method of accounting adopted by the taxpayer consistently and regularly cannot be discarded by the Departmental authorities on the view that he should have adopted

M/S GOLDY PRECISION STAMPINGS P LTD,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld.\nCIT(A) on account of delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESI\nwas deleted. Subsequently the Revenue filed an MA and the Tribunal vide MA\nNo.194/PUN/2023 order dated 07.03.2025 recalled the order of the Tribunal. The\nassessee filed a Writ Petition challenging the order dated 07.03.2025 passed

PRAKASH RAGHUNATH MANJARKAR,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE , , SATARA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on the same ground of non-completion of the construction of house and alternatively questioning the amalgamation of multiple units for self- occupied house of the assessee on 31-05-2017. The competent authorities approved assessee’s application dated 26-07-2016 and the revised building plan was sanctioned (Third Sanction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE vs. DHULE ZILHA PARISHAD KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT DHULE, DHULE

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

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

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.80,80,200/-, to the Nil income returned by the assessee. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs.80,80,200/-. As regards the addition of Rs.29

BHIMA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE - 3,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Bhima Sahakari Sahkar Jcit, Special Range - 3 Karkhana Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan Vs. A/P Madhukarar Nagar Swargate, Pune 411009 Tal. Daund, Dist Pune 413801 Pan – Aaatb1781B Appellant Respondent Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 1997-98 Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A) - 2, Pune Dated 04.07.2017 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit (A)-2/Set Aside/Pn/66/2011-12.755 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The Act.

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the Act. 2. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behalf. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. The assessee’s first and foremost substantial ground raised in the instant case seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action rejecting its stand of having not treated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHARAD NAGARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 43D were applicable in the case of assessee co-operative bank unless accrued interest was routed through P&L Account. However, the above decision has not been accepted by the CIT, Aurangabad and appeal u/s. 260A has been filed with the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. Further, appeals u/s. 260A on the similar issue have