EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

264,69,52,691/- and consequent short levy of tax. 08. In view of the above, the order dt. 26/02/2022 passed by the Faceless Assessing Officer, NeAC, Delhi under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y 2017-18 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub- section (4) has been made accepting the application." 20. Sub-section (18) of Section 155 of the Income Tax Act is inserted vide Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2022. The above referred provisions

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2),, PUNE vs. JAGTAP PATIL PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.35/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Jagtap Patil Promoters & Ward-8(2), Pune. Vs Builders, S.No.152, Pimple Gurav, Pune – 411061. Pan: Aagfj 0403 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suniol Ganoo – Ar Revenue By Shri M.M.Chate – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Pune For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)- 6, Pune Dated 04.10.2017 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2016 Passed By The Ito Ward 8(2) Pune U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Not Appreciating That It Was Only After Scrutiny Proceedings Started That The Assessee Paid The Mat. Thus By Filing Nil Return & Not Claiming Deduction U/S 80Ib(10) The Assessee Was Trying To Evade Payment Of Taxes. The Claim Of The Assessee That Filing Of Nil Return Was Clerical Error Does Not Hold Ground? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating The Ratio Laid

disallowed the claim of the assessee on this ground also. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the Assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal). The Ld.CIT(A) vide his order dated 04/10/2017 allowed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant part of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is as under : 5.2. The various

ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-6, PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPERS LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

disallowance the claim of Rs.44,95,264/- under section 80IA. This action being not in accordance with the law it is prayed

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA BANK EMPLOYEES COOP CREDIT SOCITEY LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 264 of the Act and pursuant to the directions of the Ld.\nPCIT, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO at assessed income of\nRs.2,99,19650/- by making an addition of Rs.2,99,19,650/- to the Nil\nincome returned by the assessee on account of disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA BANK EMPLOYEES COOP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 264 of the Act and pursuant to the directions of the Ld.\nPCIT, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO at assessed income of\nRs.2,99,19650/- by making an addition of Rs.2,99,19,650/- to the Nil\nincome returned by the assessee on account of disallowance

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of Tribunal recomputed the total income, as a result there was net business loss of Rs.13,00,25,239/-. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 14-12-2009 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 held that the business loss is allowed to be carried forward

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of Tribunal recomputed the total income, as a result there was net business loss of Rs.13,00,25,239/-. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 14-12-2009 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 held that the business loss is allowed to be carried forward

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of Tribunal recomputed the total income, as a result there was net business loss of Rs.13,00,25,239/-. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 14-12-2009 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 held that the business loss is allowed to be carried forward

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of Tribunal recomputed the total income, as a result there was net business loss of Rs.13,00,25,239/-. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 14-12-2009 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 held that the business loss is allowed to be carried forward

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

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

264 of the Act on 07.12.2017 instead of approaching the Tribunal for relief. The assessee filed the present appeal on 24.04.2018. Therefore, the delay, in my considered opinion, should be condoned and I proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits. Preliminary Issue 5. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is a case of CASS

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE vs. THE SHETKARI SHIKSHAN MANDAL, PUNE

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

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

section 144B of the Act thereby making addition of Rs.15,38,40,655/- being the total amount of the application of income of Rs.6,68,20,391/- claimed by the assessee on account of repayment of loan being disallowed and amount of Rs.8,70,20,264

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

264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed; (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from

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

264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed; (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from

M/S. HONEWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallow by restricting the deduction to ordinary profit. The contention of assessee is that the AO did not make any addition in terms of sub-section (7) of section 10A of the Act and enhancement proposed by the CIT(A) is not warranted u/s. 251(2) of the Act. The case of CIT(A) is that the deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallow by restricting the deduction to ordinary profit. The contention of assessee is that the AO did not make any addition in terms of sub-section (7) of section 10A of the Act and enhancement proposed by the CIT(A) is not warranted u/s. 251(2) of the Act. The case of CIT(A) is that the deduction

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

disallow the exemption claimed, for breach of the requirement of section 54E of the Act. 7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons on which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section 54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by the assessee. The question of denying any such claim

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

disallow the exemption claimed, for breach of the requirement of section 54E of the Act. 7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons on which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section 54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by the assessee. The question of denying any such claim