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

disallowance is called for because of the per se late deposit of the employees’ share beyond the due date under the respective Act and section 43B is of no assistance. 4. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to take note of the relevant statutory provision in this regard. Section 2(24) provides that `income’ includes: `(x) any sum received

R&DE (ENGRS) EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed to which the assessee did not file any objection. The Ld. AO after considering the part reply of the assessee, for the reasons recorded in para 3.6 of the assessment order and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co- operative Sale Society Vs. ITO reported in (2010) 188 Taxman

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted. 3.8 In respect of ground No. 5 regarding disallowance of interest of Rs.3,08,889/- u/s. 36

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted. 3.8 In respect of ground No. 5 regarding disallowance of interest of Rs.3,08,889/- u/s. 36

AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA GRAMSEVAKANCHI SAHAKAR PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

36 (Kerala) vide order dated\n04.09.2024 has held as under :\nQuote \"7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the\nview that for the reasons stated hereinafter, the question of law that\narises for consideration before us must be answered against the\nRevenue and in favour of the assessee. The permissible deduction\nthat is envisaged under Section

RAJDEEP INFO TECHNO P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2

SR FIBREGLASS AUTO PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2

RAJDEEP INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2

WONDER CARS P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2

SAPRE AUTO ANCILLARIES,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2

SUBHASH SAKHARAM MORE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2

SIXSIGMA MEDICARE AND RESEARCH LTD.,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2

SARIKA VIKRAM WARPE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), , PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2

ZAWARE CREATIVE ENTERPRISES P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2

VARAD CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,JALNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2

M/S. THAKKER DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2

THE RESIDENCY CLUB,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, , KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2

SATISH MADHAORAO YEOLE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), , PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2

VARAD CROP SCIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,JALNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2

SEEMA SANTOSH GHONE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the Revenue under section 36(1)(va) of the Act while processing the return of income under secretion 143(1)of the Act. 2