KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act in the appeal filed against section 143(3) order

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act in the appeal filed against section 143(3) order

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed the same by holding as under- "It would be pertinent to mention here that the above assessed loss of Rs.73,24,3051- is inclusive of Depreciation loss of Rs. 12,69,0741-. Further, under the circumstances that the return of income was not filed within the stipulated time limit as detailed in section 139(1) of the Act, only

DNYANESHWAR SHINDE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed the relief under section 89 and held that the amount/ compensation received by the assessee in full and final settlement on voluntary retirement is taxable as profits in lieu of salary under the provisions of section 17(3)(i) of the Act. Perusal

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

3) r.w.s. 144B of 16 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 the Act on 16.9.2022 with a total income of Rs.128,25,28,401/- by making two disallowances in the assessment order viz. (a) disallowance of employee‘s share of provident contribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs.16,61,049/- and (b) disallowance of education cess

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN MAHARASHTRA OPEN UNIVERSITY,NASHIK vs. EXEMPTION CIRCLE,A BAD, AURANGABAD

Section 11\n(3) of Income Tax Act, the amount of Rs.90,70,20,511/- is taxable as deemed\nincome during the instant assessment year.\nFurther, since the accumulated amount had to be utilized upto AY 2022-23, the\nground of appeal taken by appellant that amendment to S. 11(3) is applicable\nprospectively and applicable only

VIRENDRA SINGH SAINI,HARYANA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

3) of the Act. He, however, accentuated the fact that the instant batch of appeals involves the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act unless a case is covered within the specific four corners of the provision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. MANORAMA COOP BANK LTD, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2157/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Cricle-2, Solapur. Vs. Manorama Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Plot 4, 5, 6 Vijapur Road, Indiranagar S.O., Maharashtra- 413004. Pan : Aajfm6823C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Shilpa N. C. Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Admitting This Exemption U/S 194A (3)(V) To The Assessee For Non-Deduction Of Tds On Interest Credits Of Nominal Members Who Are Not Actual Member As Per Definition Of Person Who Is Eligible For Membership As Per Clause

section 194A(3) requiring no deduction of tax at source. Since the assessee made payment of interest amounting to Rs.4,20,773/- to HUF and unregistered firms, which happened to be its “Members”, we hold that the authorities below were not justified in making and confirming disallowance

NAVALMAL FIRODIA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: the learned CIT(A), the same has neither been taken note of or distinguished in any manner. Not following the binding Judicial precedent of the Jurisdictional ITAT Pune is gross impropriety in law. Ground No. 2: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”

Disallowance of Rs. 6,00,000/-. a) The learned ADDLN/JCIT (5), Delhi (CIT-A) erred in law and of facts in confirming the action of learned CPC of adding back Rs.6,00,000 to the total income of the Appellant by invoking the 2 provisions of sub clause (c) of Section 11(3) r.w.s

MARUTI KESHAVRAO DIDHORE,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section\n17(3) of the Act as profits in lieu of salary and claimed relief under\nsection 89 read with Rule 21A(1)(a) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962\n(the “Rules\") as the said amount pertained to the compensation\nreceived for termination of assessee's employment with Colgate\nPalmolive Ltd. During the course of assessment proceedings

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Section 263 of\nthe (IT) Act. Accordingly, after considering the totality of facts & circumstances of\nthe case and for the detailed reasons discussed herein above, I hold that the\nassessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dtd. 28/12/2018 for AY 2011-12, passed by\nthe Assessing Officer as erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of revenue.\n9.0 Accordingly

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Section 263 of\nthe (IT) Act. Accordingly, after considering the totality of facts & circumstances of\nthe case and for the detailed reasons discussed herein above, I hold that the\nassessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dtd. 28/12/2018 for AY 2011-12, passed by\nthe Assessing Officer as erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of revenue.\n9.0 Accordingly

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

Section 40A(3). (Separate annexure attached of various related parties whom payment given by the asseessee) However, no disallowance

SHETH CHIMANLAL GOVINDDAS MEMORIAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

3) of the Act\n5. The ld Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in exercising\njurisdiction under section 263 and directed the AO to re-examine the\nissue of investment in related party since the assessing Officer has\nalready examined the said issue and taken one view with which the\nCommissioner of Income Tax did not agree Thus

SHRI VASUPUJYA SWAMI MAHARAJ TEMPLE TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

3. In ITA No.1287/PUN/2025 assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CPC has erred in disallowing the claim of Rs.22,86,213/- being unspent amount out of accumulation of FY 2016-17 by relying on omission of particular sentence from clause (c) of Subsection

SHRI ISHWARLAL GULABCHAND VARDHAMANTAP AYAMBIL TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

3. In ITA No.1287/PUN/2025 assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CPC has erred in disallowing the claim of Rs.22,86,213/- being unspent amount out of accumulation of FY 2016-17 by relying on omission of particular sentence from clause (c) of Subsection

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

3. Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act provides for deduction of any revenue expenditure (other than those failing under sections 30 to 36) from the business Income if such expense is laid out/expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. However, theexplanation appended to this sub-section denies claim of any such expense

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

3. Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act provides for deduction of any\nrevenue expenditure (other than those failing under sections 30 to\n36) from the business Income if such expense is laid\nout/expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business or\nprofession. However, theexplanation appended to this sub-section\ndenies claim of any such expense

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

3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 1448 of the Act, dated 26/02/2022 is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Thus both the conditions specified under section 263 of the Act are satisfied in this case and it is a fit case to invoke provisions of the said section. Hence, the assessment order dated 26/02/2022