M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

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

4) Where registration or provisional registration of a trust or an institution has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12AA, as the case may be, and subsequently,—\n(a) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has noticed occurrence of one or more specified

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

4) Where registration or provisional registration of a trust or an\ninstitution has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of\nsub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12AA, as the\ncase may be, and subsequently,—\n(a) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has noticed occurrence\nof one or more specified

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. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 270A of the Act for claiming deduction of Health and Education Cess by the Appellant which was supported by various Judicial precedents. 4. The Ld. AO / CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the claim of Health and Education Cess was made by Appellant in good faith

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

4. ought to have appreciated that the present issue of allowability of deduction under section 80-IA by way of revised return which was allowed vide earlier order under section 143(3) read with 154 of the Act dated 11 January 2023 but disallowed

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

4. ought to have appreciated that the present issue of allowability of deduction under section 80-IA by way of revised return which was allowed vide earlier order under section 143(3) read with 154 of the Act dated 11 January 2023 but disallowed

T AND T INFRA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 T & T Infra Limited Acit, Circle – 7, Pune A-1, Vishnu Vihar, Bibwewadi Vs. Kondhwa Road, Market Yard, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aaect3902H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Ghia Department By : S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-10-2024 O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, Jm :

3 Manisha construction 13,01,833/- 4 S.K. Yewale and Co 5,59,873/- 5 Sadhbhav Engg Ltd 9,83,325/- Total 40,91,541/- 8. Applying the provisions of section 80IA(4)(b)(i) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed

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

THE MUMBAI OBSTETRIC GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,LOW PAREL (W) vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

3) of the Act was made by the\nAssessing Officer for cancellation of registration u/s.12AB(4) of\nthe Act. On the basis of said reference, ld. PCIT proceeded to\nexamine the records of the assessee. In the said reference, there\nwas mention about the search and seizure action u/s.132 of the\nAct carried out on 16.12.2020 in Emcure Group

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

3 Section 10(10B) 52,052 4 Any other (Section 10(5)) 11,278 5 Compensation received claimed for Relief u/s 89 13,81,045 3.1 According to the Ld. AO an amount aggregating to Rs.15,25,530/- had escaped from assessment. The case of the assessee was thus reopened u/s 4 ITA No.1726/PUN/2025

SATYAM TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

3. NOT ALLOWING THE INDEX COST AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition. 3.2 While doing so the Ld. AO failed to appreciate the facts of the case and which resulted in disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition. 3.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 PUNE, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1255/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner L B Kunjir, Of Income Tax, V S.No.52/1 Swanand Circle-7, Pune. S Building, Shree Ram Hsg Society, Kharadi, Chandanagar, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabfl9816E Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri R.Y.Balawade – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 12/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order

disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of 2 L B Kunjir [R] the Act. It is observed in the assessment order that assessee had installed wind mills and solar power plants. Assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act on these wind mills and solar power plants. The details of the wind mills

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

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 by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund or superannuation 5 fund or any fund set up under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance

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

disallow the\nappellant's claim when processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act.\n7. Hence, I find no merit in the current appeal and, as a result, dismiss the\nappeal.\"\n5.\nAggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A), the assessee is in\nappeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:\n1)\nThe

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 40(a)(ia) is attracted, since they are only nominal members and not actual member, exemption u/s 194A(3)(v) is not available to them. Ld. DR further submitted before the Bench that the principle of mutuality is not applicable between nominal members and the assessee cooperative bank. Accordingly, Ld. DR requested before the Bench to set-aside

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 115BBI

M/S SUYOJIT INFRASTRUCTURE ,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowance of deduction of Rs.2,51,56,948/- claimed U/s. 80-IA(4) of the Act is not justified in holding that the company M/s. Suyojit Infrastructure Private Limited has sublet the work to assessee, ignoring the fact that the assessee firm is just a special purpose vehicle owned and controlled by company to carry out the infrastructural project

M/S SUYOJIT INFRASTRUCTURE ,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowance of deduction of Rs.2,51,56,948/- claimed U/s. 80-IA(4) of the Act is not justified in holding that the company M/s. Suyojit Infrastructure Private Limited has sublet the work to assessee, ignoring the fact that the assessee firm is just a special purpose vehicle owned and controlled by company to carry out the infrastructural project