RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

disallow the claim on the ground that as required under section 54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest the surplus for a minimum period of 36 months. (4) Though through the affidavit-in-reply it is now pointed out that reference to section 54E is mere typographical error and the intention was to refer to section 54

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

disallow the claim on the ground that as required under section 54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest the surplus for a minimum period of 36 months. (4) Though through the affidavit-in-reply it is now pointed out that reference to section 54E is mere typographical error and the intention was to refer to section 54

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

54 (not u/s 54F of Act). AO has wrongly observed that Appellant claimed deduction u/s 54F of Act and disallowed the same.  The conditions to be satisfied to claim exemption under section

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Section 54 in fact requires the assessee\nto acquire a new unit within a year or build himself within\nthree years. In the later case he has to invest the surplus in\nspecified investments. This was thus not a mere typographical\nerror but a conscious decision on the part of the Assessing\nOfficer to disallow

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Section 54 in fact requires the assessee\nto acquire a new unit within a year or build himself within\nthree years. In the later case he has to invest the surplus in\nspecified investments. This was thus not a mere typographical\nerror but a conscious decision on the part of the Assessing\nOfficer to disallow

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Section 54 in fact requires the assessee\nto acquire a new unit within a year or build himself within\nthree years. In the later case he has to invest the surplus in\nspecified investments. This was thus not a mere typographical\nerror but a conscious decision on the part of the Assessing\nOfficer to disallow

RAMDAS SITARAM PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramdas Sitaram Patil, Vs. Acit, 238/2, Atharva Estate, Central Circle, E-Ward, Tarabai Park – 416 003 Kolhapur Kolhapur, Maharashtra Pan : Agupp5765D Appellant Respondent

disallowing the claim for deduction u/s.54/54F by holding that the possession agreement dated 31.03.2015 is a fabricated document in view of the statement made by him u/s.132(4) of the Act on 19.12.2014 that the new residential property is in his possession. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal

FCA INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED (SURVIVING ENTITY AFTER THE MERGER OF PCA MOTORS PVT LTD),PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowance under section 37 of the Act amounting INR 11,598,511 is relating to the business activity and hence, the same should be factored while computing profits and gains of business, for deriving 'total income' eligible for deduction under section 10AA of the Act. 3.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/NFAC

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

disallowance of exemption u/s 548 in respect of investment in agricultural land and all the conditions have been complied with (iv) The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the appellant had made substantial payments towards consideration for purchase of the new agricultural land and possession was obtained in prescribed time thereby proving

WILDERNEST BETTER LIVING & MAINTENANCE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.856/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Wildernest Better Living V The Income Tax Officer, Maintenance Co-Operative S Ward-6(1), Pune. Society Limited, Plot No.58, 59 & 60, Woldernest Society, Khadakwasla, Taluka Haveli, Pune – 411024. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Arpit Dnyandeo Dambhare & Shri Deepak Sasar – Ca’S Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Panaji Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2021-22 Dated

disallowance by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Totgars Cooperative Sale Society (2017) 395 ITR 611 (Kar). The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). ………….. 6. Considering that the issue in assessee's case being identical ie denial of deduction under

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

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

54,734\n1,11,75,451\n1.3 From above, Your Honour may appreciate the fact that the disallowance\namounting to Rs.1,78,75,505/- in respect of amounts inadmissible u/s.\n40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) is duly considered in return of income by the appellant\ncompany and their is not any short disallowance made.\n1.4 Further, the appellant

SHEELA DEEPAK GUNDECHA,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

disallowed the claim u/s 54 of the Act as the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions laid down under the said section

ATHARVA FOUNDRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1) , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of Penal Interest of Rs.5,54,598/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer on the ground that the said penal interest is penalty notwithstanding the well accepted legal position that Explanation 1 to section

SANGRAM NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT ,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowing section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim of Rs.1,54,52,445/- representing interest income from Co-operative banks

R B DIAMOND HOUSE,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-1, RANGE -25, CIRCLE -1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 69A.\nGround No. 6: Interest Disallowance Rs.1,54,43,569/-\n6.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case

PRAJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 14A is attracted, the disallowance has to be made as per Rule 8D. However, this is not so. The Ld. AO has to be satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee having regard to the assessee’s account. The 6 ITA No.1413/PUN/2023, AY 2017-18 Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

SEEMA SUNIL BAGUL,NASHIK vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, NASHIK. , NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 36(1)(va) are not applicable to Employer's contribution to PF as well as ESIC. 2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,54

SEEMA SUNIL BAGUL,NASHIK vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, NASHIK. , NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 36(1)(va) are not applicable to Employer's contribution to PF as well as ESIC. 2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,54

SEEMA SUNIL BAGUL,NASHIK vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, NASHIK. , NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 36(1)(va) are not applicable to Employer's contribution to PF as well as ESIC. 2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and as per law, The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,54