MR. VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

293 (Pune-Trib.). Further, consequent to search, additions were made in the hands of M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and the similar plea of transactions through Shri Sohanlal Mehta and the statement recorded of him was considered by the Tribunal starting from paras 125 to 130. The conclusion in para 130 reads as under:- “130. So far as the finding

MR. VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

293 (Pune-Trib.). Further, consequent to search, additions were made in the hands of M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and the similar plea of transactions through Shri Sohanlal Mehta and the statement recorded of him was considered by the Tribunal starting from paras 125 to 130. The conclusion in para 130 reads as under:- “130. So far as the finding

ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRI VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

293 (Pune-Trib.). Further, consequent to search, additions were made in the hands of M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and the similar plea of transactions through Shri Sohanlal Mehta and the statement recorded of him was considered by the Tribunal starting from paras 125 to 130. The conclusion in para 130 reads as under:- “130. So far as the finding

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

293 of the Act to the Instant suit or assessee. Accordingly, the grounds are decided pro- tanto.” Summation of proceedings: Therefore, essentially, what the Tribunal 9. did in the first round, as per the reasons recorded therein, that the existence of HUF with agricultural land holding of 60.40 acres is upheld. Secondly, regarding the quantification of said income, the Tribunal

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

293 of the Act to the Instant suit or assessee. Accordingly, the grounds are decided pro- tanto.” Summation of proceedings: Therefore, essentially, what the Tribunal 9. did in the first round, as per the reasons recorded therein, that the existence of HUF with agricultural land holding of 60.40 acres is upheld. Secondly, regarding the quantification of said income, the Tribunal

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

293 of the Act to the Instant suit or assessee. Accordingly, the grounds are decided pro- tanto.” Summation of proceedings: Therefore, essentially, what the Tribunal 9. did in the first round, as per the reasons recorded therein, that the existence of HUF with agricultural land holding of 60.40 acres is upheld. Secondly, regarding the quantification of said income, the Tribunal

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

293 of the Act to the Instant suit or assessee. Accordingly, the grounds are decided pro- tanto.” Summation of proceedings: Therefore, essentially, what the Tribunal 9. did in the first round, as per the reasons recorded therein, that the existence of HUF with agricultural land holding of 60.40 acres is upheld. Secondly, regarding the quantification of said income, the Tribunal

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

293 of the Act to the Instant suit or assessee. Accordingly, the grounds are decided pro- tanto.” Summation of proceedings: Therefore, essentially, what the Tribunal 9. did in the first round, as per the reasons recorded therein, that the existence of HUF with agricultural land holding of 60.40 acres is upheld. Secondly, regarding the quantification of said income, the Tribunal

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

293 of the Act to the Instant suit or assessee. Accordingly, the grounds are decided pro- tanto.” Summation of proceedings: Therefore, essentially, what the Tribunal 9. did in the first round, as per the reasons recorded therein, that the existence of HUF with agricultural land holding of 60.40 acres is upheld. Secondly, regarding the quantification of said income, the Tribunal

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE, (SMALLER HUF),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

293 of the Act to the Instant suit or assessee. Accordingly, the grounds are decided pro- tanto.” Summation of proceedings: Therefore, essentially, what the Tribunal 9. did in the first round, as per the reasons recorded therein, that the existence of HUF with agricultural land holding of 60.40 acres is upheld. Secondly, regarding the quantification of said income, the Tribunal

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

293 of the Act to the Instant suit or assessee. Accordingly, the grounds are decided pro- tanto.” Summation of proceedings: Therefore, essentially, what the Tribunal 9. did in the first round, as per the reasons recorded therein, that the existence of HUF with agricultural land holding of 60.40 acres is upheld. Secondly, regarding the quantification of said income, the Tribunal

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

293 of the Act to the Instant suit or assessee. Accordingly, the grounds are decided pro- tanto.” Summation of proceedings: Therefore, essentially, what the Tribunal 9. did in the first round, as per the reasons recorded therein, that the existence of HUF with agricultural land holding of 60.40 acres is upheld. Secondly, regarding the quantification of said income, the Tribunal

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

section 43B of the Act. 15. The last point for the adjudication is the special manner of determination of income of the insurance companies as prescribed under rule 5 of Schedule 1 of the Act. The Profit and Loss Account disclosed by the assessee i.e. its annual accounts are sacrosanct. The said rule provides that the income to be determined

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

section 43B of the Act. 15. The last point for the adjudication is the special manner of determination of income of the insurance companies as prescribed under rule 5 of Schedule 1 of the Act. The Profit and Loss Account disclosed by the assessee i.e. its annual accounts are sacrosanct. The said rule provides that the income to be determined

KUDALE AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-14, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

293 ITR 226 (SC) support of its claim, the assessee submitted that the benefit of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) r.w. first proviso to section 201(1) should be granted to the assessee in respect of the aforementioned three parties. So far as M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. is concerned, the assessee submitted two documents requesting

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowed the deduction of Rs.15,96,293/- under section 80JJAA of the Act merely on account of late filing of Form

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowed the deduction of Rs.15,96,293/- under section 80JJAA of the Act merely on account of late filing of Form

SHREE GARUDA PLANT PRODUCTS LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, NASHIK

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.492/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik. Pan: Aaacg 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishint Gandhi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 19.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Nashik ["The Cit (A)" For Short] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Nashik, ["The Ao" For Short] Which Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Without Affording A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Invoking Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Act, Whereby A Disallowance Of Rs.12,81,831/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Appellant.

disallowance u/s 14A is called for. Accordingly Ground No.2 of the Assessee is allowed. ITA No.492/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products Ltd.[A] Ground Number 3 - Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) : 3. As per the Assessment order, the assessee has received Loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from Trenton Investment Company Pvt Ltd and Rs.11