INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowed. 11. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A). 12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowed. 11. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A). 12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowed. 11. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A). 12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION PUNE BRANCH,SHUKRAWAR PETH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE

In the result, all the 5 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowed. 11. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A). 12. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various

SURIA STEELTECH PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS TMS ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-9(4), PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

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

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

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

disallowed under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of section 40 of the Act. The relevant part of Hon‘ble Supreme Court judgment is as under: 7. The above legislative history of the Finance Acts, as also the practice, would appear to indicate that the term ―Income tax‖ as employed in Section 2 includes surcharge as also the special

M/S. SHIVAMM INDUSTRIES,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.393/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Shivamm Industries, The Dy.Commissioner Of Plot 76, Arihant Heights, Sector Vs Income Tax, Circle-8, No.25, Pradhikaran Nigdi, Pune. Pune – 411044. Pan: Aaefs 0458 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 15/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee I.E. Shivamm Industries For A.Y. 2013-14 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Of Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 21.03.2023 Emanating From Assessing Officer’S Order Under Section 154 Of The Act Dated 22.03.2021. The Ground Of Appeal Are As Under : “1. The Order Dated 21/03/2023 Bearing No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051048828[L] Passed Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 By The Hon’Ble Cit[Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Is Excessive, M/S.Shivamm Industries [A]

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

disallowance of deduction claimed under\nsections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID\nor section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond\nthe due date specified under sub-section (1) of\nsection 139\"\n6. Given that there is no specific requirement in section 10AA\nto file the return of income within the due date

GORIBI ABDUL KARIM NADAF,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ADDL JCIT (A) -1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

GORIBI ABDUL KARIM NADAF,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ADDL JCIT (A) 1 - AHMEDABAD, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ADDL/JCIT (A) AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

M/S. THE KOTHARI WHEELS ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CPC,BANGALORE, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is 6 obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

disallowance of deduction claimed under\nsections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID\nor section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond\nthe due date specified under sub-section (1) of\nsection 139\"\n\n6. Given that there is no specific requirement in section 10AA\nto file the return of income within the due date

RAVINDRA DNYANESHWR BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

40%. These situations warrant an adjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation (a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case. 10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides for `disallowance

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. GRIHUM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

40) of the tax audit report the assessee had reported its turnover of Rs.248.77 crore for the financial year ended 31st March, 2017. The definition of ‘turnover’ as per section 2(91) of the Companies Act, 2013 was also brought to the notice of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A). The decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal

RAVINDRA DNYANESHWAR BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(5), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

40%. These situations warrant an\nadjustment. It is obvious that none of the three clauses of Explanation\n(a), defining an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the\nreturn, gets magnetized to the facts of the present case.\n10. Now we turn to clause (iv) of section 143(1)(a) which provides\nfor 'disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed the same u/s 37 of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,22,86,304/-. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee submitted that the reasons for reopening were communited to the assessee after 11 months of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act although the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 148 prior to 31-\n03-2021) as notice_u/s_148A(b) and directed to provide the information and\nmaterial relied upon by the revenue to the assessee for issue of such notice, within\n30 days from the date of order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India i.e. 04-\n05-2022 and to provide two weeks time to file

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

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

sections": [ "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "92CA(3)", "143(3)", "144C(3)", "144B", "40(a)(ia)", "14A", "40(a)(i)", "ICDS", "37", "40" ], "issues": "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning transfer pricing adjustments, disallowances