ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

5 other persons have entered into an Agreement to purchase an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.72.00 lakh which\n2\nITA No.1016/PUN/2024\nRajendra Rasiklal Shah\nwas registered under Amnesty Scheme on 06.02.2016, the value of the property as on 06.02.2016 as per Circle/Guidelines Rates for Stamp Duty purpose was Rs.19,85,97,000/-. Since the assessee had paid only

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

B or section 80-IC or section 80-ID or section 80-IE; (ii) the 1st day of April 2018, any deduction is admissible under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless the furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year

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

B or section 80-IC or section 80-ID or section 80-IE; (ii) the 1st day of April 2018, any deduction is admissible under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes", no such deduction shall be allowed to him unless the furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) (either independently of, or in addition to, all or any of the\nactivities so specified). so much of its profits and gains attributable to such activities as does not\nexceed,-\n(1)\n(ii) in any other case, fifty thousand rupees\nshall be deducted, while computing the total income of the assessee.\nAs per above section, the asessee

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

disallowed / taxed accordingly as per computation as under: Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Redeemed Value of MF on 29.01.2015 8,99,93,198/- Add: Dividend Received 2,06,68,835/- Business Loss claimed 1,00,06,802/- 10 IT(SS)A Nos.23 to 25/PUN/2024 Total Receipts 12,06,68,835/- Less: Initial Investment Cost 10,00,00,000/- Income earned 2

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, MAN,SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

5(b) of the Banking\nRegulation Act, 1949, which means the accepting, for the purpose of lending or\ninvestment, of deposits of money from the public. Likewise, under section 22(1)(b)\nof the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as applicable to co-operative societies, no co-\noperative society shall carry on banking business in India, unless

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, TAL. MAN SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

5(b) of the Banking\nRegulation Act, 1949, which means the accepting, for the purpose of lending or\ninvestment, of deposits of money from the public. Likewise, under section 22(1)(b)\nof the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as applicable to co-operative societies, no co-\noperative society shall carry on banking business in India, unless

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed the\ndeduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) of the Act\namounting to Rs.3,04,88,392/- treating the same as other income'.\nAccordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment on 28.09.2021 u/s\n143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.3,04,88,392/- as\nincome from other sources

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

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

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

b) The amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

b) The amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

b) The amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

b) The amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

b) The amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing

SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PANDHARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 PANDHARPUR , PANDHARPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

2,3,4 and 5 all are pertaining to deduction u/s.80P of the Act. Since all these grounds are interlinked they are discussed together here under : 7.1 The due date of filling the Return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Act was 07/11/2017 for AY 2017-18. 7.2 The relevant sections pertaining to filling of Return are reproduced here

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

b) of sub-section (2) of section 249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 286CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section 270A. (4) The Assessing Officer shall, within

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

5 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 28.02.2025 of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A)-5, Delhi relating to different assessment years as mentioned therein. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. First

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

5 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 28.02.2025 of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A)-5, Delhi relating to different assessment years as mentioned therein. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. First

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

5 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 28.02.2025 of the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A)-5, Delhi relating to different assessment years as mentioned therein. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. First