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

56,110/- was raised against the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred an appeal before this forum. During the appellate proceedings, a notice under section 250 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under

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

56,110/- was raised against the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred an appeal before this forum. During the appellate proceedings, a notice under section 250 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under

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

56,110/- was raised against the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant preferred an appeal before this forum. During the appellate proceedings, a notice under section 250 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response, the appellant submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to genuine reasons. It was stated that the intimation under

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as the issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by ld. AO treating

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as the issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by ld. AO treating

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as the issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by ld. AO treating

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as the issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by ld. AO treating

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as the issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by ld. AO treating

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

1)\nof the Act, dated 19/01/2021\n724,67,72,290/-\nli\nAdd: TP Adjustment\n12,70,86,646/-\nii\nAdd: Disallowances u/s.14A r.w.s.8D\n47,55,629/-\n\nill\n\nAdd: Denial of claim of deduction u/s.\n35(2AB)\n13,10,97,715/-\n\niv\nAdd: Denial of claim of deduction on\naccount of Education Cess Paid

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

1)\nof the Act, dated 19/01/2021\n724,67,72,290/-\nli\nAdd: TP Adjustment\n12,70,86,646/-\nii\nAdd: Disallowances u/s.14A r.w.s.8D\n47,55,629/-\niii\nAdd: Denial of claim of deduction u/s.\n35(2AB)\n13,10,97,715/-\niv\nAdd: Denial of claim of deduction on\naccount of Education Cess Paid\n5,28,66,834/-\n2\nTotal Assessed

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

56, Addl. JCIT(A) 1, Survey No. 40, Subhash Ahmedabad Nagar, Vishrantwadi, Dhanori B.O.-411015 PAN : AEDPN4485P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date of hearing : 29.04.2024 Date of pronouncement : 30.04.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the common order of ld. Commissioner of Income

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

56, Addl. JCIT(A) 1, Survey No. 40, Subhash Ahmedabad Nagar, Vishrantwadi, Dhanori B.O.-411015 PAN : AEDPN4485P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date of hearing : 29.04.2024 Date of pronouncement : 30.04.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the common order of ld. Commissioner of Income

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD6(1), PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the\nassessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA\nNo

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, 1d. CIT(A) affirmed\nthe action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the\njudgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate\nServices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as\nthe issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by\nld. AO treating

ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the\nassessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA\nNo

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, 1d. CIT(A) affirmed\nthe action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the\njudgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate\nServices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as\nthe issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by\nld. AO treating

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(1), PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the\nassessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA\nNo

disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act, 1d. CIT(A) affirmed\nthe action of the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the\njudgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate\nServices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). So far as\nthe issue raised by the assessee against the addition made by\nld. AO treating

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

56,25,041/-\nWIP of Rs.396,30,86,527/-being borrowing cost is to be included in WIP as on\n31/03/2014) Incurred by the assessee as borrowing cost which is\ndisproportionately claimed is disallowed and added back to total income of\nassessee. Penalty proceeding under section 271[1

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

AIS SHIVAJI MEMORIAL SOCIETYS EMPLOYEES COOP CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20

56,720/- on account of belated filing of the return. 2 3. Before the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) it was argued that although the assessee has filed the return of income belatedly but the assessee society is eligible for deduction claimed u/s 80P in the return. Relying on various decisions it was argued that the provisions are beneficial