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

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia). He\nfurther submitted that from the books of account of the asssessee it was established\nthat these were actual expenses incurred during AY 2017-18 and not the\n\"provisions for expenses” on which TDS was not deducted. He submitted that the\nassessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence that TDS was deducted during\nthe assessment

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

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

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

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

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

I T S P M M SEVAKANCHI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(10, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1772/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 I T S P M M Sevakanchi Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sahakari Patasanstha Kolhapur Marydit, Indapur, Pune- 413106 Maharashtra Pan-Aaaai8805J Appellant Respondent

section 143(1)(a) of the Act for disallowing deduction claimed under any of the provisions of Chapter VI A under the heading “C-deductions in respect of certain incomes” has been enabled w.e.f. 01.04.2021. Since in the instant case CPC had denied the 80P deduction in the order u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act processed

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

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

disallow the exemption claimed, for breach of the\nrequirement of section 54E of the Act.\n7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons\non which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section\n54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by\nthe 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\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

disallow the exemption claimed, for breach of the\nrequirement of section 54E of the Act.\n7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons\non which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section\n54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by\nthe 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\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

disallow the exemption claimed, for breach of the\nrequirement of section 54E of the Act.\n7. What thus emerges from the above discussion is that the reasons\non which the notice for reopening is issued lacks validity. Section\n54E of the Act was neither applicable nor sought to be applied by\nthe assessee. The question of denying any such claim

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

section 12AB of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while raising the issue of challenging the powers available in section 12AB of the Act made threefold contentions and the same are :\n(a)\nthat in absence of express powers provided u/s.12AB of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s.12A of the Act, notice issued on 21.03.2023 u/s.12AB

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

264 ITR 193 (Bom) to contend that when the business is transferred, chargeability arises in terms of section 50B. It is no doubt true that both the Hon‘ble High Courts have held as has been argued. 11. The AO/ld. CIT(A) have fully/partly taken shelter of section 28(ii)(a)/(va) to canvass their respective points of view

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

264 ITR 193 (Bom) to contend that when the business is transferred, chargeability arises in terms of section 50B. It is no doubt true that both the Hon‘ble High Courts have held as has been argued. 11. The AO/ld. CIT(A) have fully/partly taken shelter of section 28(ii)(a)/(va) to canvass their respective points of view

ATHARVA POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIRUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1912/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Atharva Polymers Private The Dy.Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, Cricle-1(1), Gat No.596, Dhoksanghvi, Pune. Ranjangaon Ganpati, Tal.Shirur, Pune – 412209. Pan: Aahca 1363 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rohit Tapadiya– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Punedated 25.07.2019For The A.Y.2014-15.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Ex Party Order. 2. The Ld. Ao Erred & Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made Of Rs.1,93,452/- On Account Of Delayed Contribution Made To Pf Although The Same Was Paid Before The Due Date Of Furnishing Of Return U/S 139(1). 3. The Ld. Ao Erred & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Treatment Made W.R.T. Subsidy Received Of Rs.2,72,696/- Under Ip Scheme By Deducting The Receipt From Block Of Asset. 4. The Ld. Ao Erred & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Subsidy Received Under Ip Scheme As Capital Receipt.

disallowance of Rs.2,72,696/- as wrong claim of depreciation. AO also added Dividend income of Rs.48,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before the ld.CIT(A), despite several opportunities of ITA No.1912/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 Atharva Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy.CIT, Circle1(1), Pune (A) hearing, none appeared on behalf