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

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

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

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

67,333/- to\nRs.9,42,944/- since the amount of Rs.24,389/- was paid within due\ndate as prescribed under the respective Act i.e. ESI. While doing\nso, he followed the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in\ncase of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, [2022] 143\ntaxmann.com 178 (SC), Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of\nRs.9

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

67. It was held by the Supreme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to attract taxability under Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

67,100/- declared by the assessee. The Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of income. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee made detailed submissions before the Ld. AO on 23.07.2014 which are recorded by the Ld. AO in para 3.1 of the penalty order. The Ld. AO not being

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

1 Vs. Eltek SGS (P.) Ltd.\n[2023] 153 taxmann.com 263 (Delhi)\n)iv) S&P Capital IQ (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of\nIncome-tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com 12 (Hyderabad - Trib.)\n7.\nAs regards the other grounds raised by the assessee relating to non-\ngranting of allowance of unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward\nbusiness losses (Ground

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

M/S GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D at ₹3,82,623, and assessed the income at ₹1,83,60,35,564. 5. Subsequently, ld. PCIT (Central) invoked provisions of section 263 of the Act regarding the claim of depreciation on intangible assets at ₹1,86,95,184 giving reference of the generation of goodwill at the time of amalgamation

DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., PUNE

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961?\n\n2.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/-\non product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were

DCIT,CIRCLE-8 , PUNE vs. MAHALE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

DCIT CIRCLE 8 , PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

disallowed portion of provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) as per the formula prescribed under Rule 6ABA of Income Tax Rules, 1962. Point No. 18 Prior period income and prior period expenses was Rs.38,53,239/- and Rs.1,67,35,091/- respectively. While filing the Income Tax Return, Prior Period Income was offered to tax whereas

PRAMOD TARADE,RAIGAD vs. CIT ( NFAC ), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pramod Tarade, The Commissioner Of A-2, Sai Ameya Chs, Plot V Income Tax,[Nfac]. No.28, Sector-12, Kharghar, S Panvel, Raigad – 410210. Maharashtra. Pan: Aevpt9870L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarun G – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2021-22 Passed On 24.06.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Nfac, Dt. 24-06-2023 For The A.Y. 2021 -22 Is Contrary To Law & Facts & In The Circumstances Of Pramod Tarade [A]

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.12.2022. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under : “1. The Order of the CIT(A) NFAC, dt. 24-06-2023 for the A.Y. 2021 -22 is contrary to law and facts and in the circumstances of Pramod Tarade [A] the case. 2. The CIT(A) NFAC

KUMAR GAURAV SHARMA ,CURRENTLY EMPLOYED IN USA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER , PUNE

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

Section 143(1) was issued\non 26.03.2021, but the FTC was filed on 02.02.2021. Thus, the respondent is\nsupposed to have provided the due credit to the FTC of the petitioner. However,\nthe FTC was rejected by the respondent, which is not proper and the same is not\nin accordance with law. Therefore the impugned order is liable

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

section 149(1)(b) of the I T Act, 1961.\nSd/-\n(Naganath B Pasale, IRS)\nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Circle-1(1), Pune\"\n4.\nAccordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2018. The\nassessee in response to the same vide letter dated 11.09.2018 requested the\nAssessing Officer to consider the return of income

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

section 149(1)(b) of the I T Act, 1961.\nSd/-\n(Naganath B Pasale, IRS)\nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Circle-1(1), Pune\"\n4.\nAccordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2018. The\nassessee in response to the same vide letter dated 11.09.2018 requested the\nAssessing Officer to consider the return of income

DESAI INFRA PROJECTS(I) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) for delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF. 10. We find that the provision of Section 263 of the Act has direct bearing on the issue raised before us, therefore, it is pertinent to take note of this section which reads as under: "263(1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT CIRCLE SANGLI, SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

disallowed 80P is that assessee had not filed Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act. 6.2 However, in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act only on the issue that interest earned from banks is not eligible for deduction. The relevant paragraph