ARUNKUMAR PURSHOTAMLAL KHANNA,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CIRCLE), PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.181/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Arunkumar Purshotamlal Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. Khanna, Flat No.3123/3124, Clover Palisades, Nibm Road, Kondhwa, Pune- 411048. Pan : Agipk3043K Appellant Respondent

disallow the same in his section 143(3) regular assessment dated 14.12.2017 thereby not making any addition in returned income amounting to Rs.7,76,60,770/-. 3. The PCIT thereafter sought to invoke its 263 revision jurisdiction on the ground that the above stated regular assessment was an erroneous one causing prejudice interest of the Revenue. He issued his show

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SAHAAN INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1586/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 9 of the Act. This disallowance was deleted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which forms the bedrock of Revenue‟s appeal before us. 3. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of owning and maintaining Race horses. The assessee company had filed its e-return of income declaring total loss

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

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

section 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) under clause 21(b) of Tax Audit Report and the same is reflected in return of income under "Schedule BP: Computation of income from business or profession, Part A, Serial no.16" on page no.86 ......” 20. It was submitted that the assessee company has claimed deduction in respect of amounts disallowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

disallowance of depreciation of items of stainless steel tables, stools, trollies used in the laboratory treating as Plant & Machinery as against the treatment of these items as furniture items. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the respondent-assessee company treated the stainless steel tables, stools trollies amounting to Rs.39,07,934/- used in the laboratory

RAMESH GARWARE CHARITY TRUST,PUNE vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.776/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ramesh Garware Charitable V The Exemption Ward- Trust, S. 1(1), Pune. P B Box 3, Ramesh Garware Farm, Nda Road, Khadakwasla, Pune – 411023. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatr6365D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dalpat Shah – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax[Jcit(A)], Thiruvanantpura Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 14.08.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Disallowance of Deduction U/sec 11(2) of Rs.74,49,246/- On the facts and circumstances of the case, the said CIT(Appeals) erred in not allowing deduction claimed of accumulation of Rs. 74,49,246/- under section 11(2) of the Income tax Act following the assessment order for A.Y 2017-18 ignoring the fact that the provisions of section

KUMAR PROPERTIES AND REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2977/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14 Kumar Properties & Real Estate Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Private Limited, Pune Ist Floor, Kumar Capital, East Street, Camp, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aaack7490H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By Shri Vitthal Bhosale Date Of Hearing 27.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28-04.2021 आदेश / Order Per R.S. Syal, Vp : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-7, Pune On 01.09.2017 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,47,65,688/- Towards Deemed Rental Income On Stock-In-Trade Of Unsold Flats/Bungalows Held By The Assessee, As A First Major Issue. Succinctly, The Factual Panorama Of The Case Is That The Assessee Has Been Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Properties With The Projects `Kumar Infinia’ & `Kumar Picasso’

690/-. The AO observed during the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee company was a partner in M/s Marigold Properties and had invested Rs.35.20 crore, income from which was exempt. The AO required the assessee to state reasons as to why no disallowance was offered u/s 14A on this count. The assessee submitted that no exempt income was earned

REINSHAW METRLOGY SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm आयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.1560/Pun/2017 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Renishaw Metrology Systems Limited, The D.C.I.T., S.No. 283, Hissa No. 2, S.No. 284, Vs Circle-5, Hissa No. 2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Pune. Village Mann Taluka, Mulshi, District- Pune 411057. Pan No. Aabcr6361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain-Ar (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav-Dr (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per:Shri Sonjoy Sarma, J.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune,(In Short, The Cit(A) In Relation To The Assessment Order Dated 23/03/2016 Passed By Dcit, Circle-5, Pune For The Assessment Year 2012-13.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo)/Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Erred & The Hon/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A)) Has Further Erred In Upholding/Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Tpo/Ao In: 1 Transfer Pricing General Ground 1.1 Making An Addition To The Appellant’S Total Income Based On The Provisions Of Chapter X Of The Act & Have Further Erred In Fact & In Law In Not Providing Any Reasons To Show That The Conditions Mentioned In Clauses (A) To (D) Of Section 92C(3) Of The

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed/furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that adjustment made is not in accordance with the law. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing

DCIT, NASHIK vs. KUNJ EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED, MALEGAON

In the result, matter is restored to the file of NFAC on the above lines

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.971/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Nashik Vs. Kunj Exim Private Limited, Tamba Kanta No.75, Pinjar Street, Malegaon, Nashik – 423 203 Maharashtra Pan : Aaeck6572G Appellant Respondent

690/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 28.12.2016 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act at a total 2 income of Rs.3,08,85,082/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the Commission expenditure of Rs.2,76,87,392/- u/s.40(a)(ia) on the ground that the expenditure

RAJENDRA MULCHAND GOTHI,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

690/-. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 10.03.2017 (in appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)-1/690/2015-16) granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following ground: 1. On the basis of facts and the circumstances

ASCENDAS IT PARK (PUNE) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.966/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ascendas It Park (Pune) Vs. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Private Limited, Pune. Unit No.607 & 608, 6Th Floor, Amar Business Park, Survey No.105 (3), Baner, Pune- 411045. Pan : Aafca4840E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Chandni Shah Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 31.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal :- “Ground 1: Treating General Management Fees Paid By The Appellant To Be Capital In Nature On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action

690/-. While doing, the Assessing Officer disallowed general management fees paid by the appellant to Ascendas Services (India) Private Limited (ASIPL) of Rs.1,41,15,081/- on the ground that the general management fees was not revenue expenditure and should be capitalized as the project 3 is still under construction. The factual matrix of the case is as under

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

section 28 of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble ITAT are reproduced below : (Refer Pages 690 to 754 of the Paper Book): "Such a claim can at best be examined on the touchstone of principles regarding admissibility of business losses, but that exercise has not been done by any of the authorities below.......he claim of deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

section 28 of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble ITAT are reproduced below : (Refer Pages 690 to 754 of the Paper Book): "Such a claim can at best be examined on the touchstone of principles regarding admissibility of business losses, but that exercise has not been done by any of the authorities below.......he claim of deduction

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

disallowed and added to the taxable income.\n7.0 Considering the above, it is apparent that the A.O has failed to apply his mind\nto the case in all perspectives and the order passed by him was erroneous and in\nresult prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.\n11\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\n7.1 In the case of CIT v. Jawahar

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) do not cover the interest income earned\nfrom Co-operative Banks and disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction u/s\n80P by making addition of Rs.5,15,78,931/- to the income of Rs.4,03,690

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) do not cover the interest income earned\nfrom Co-operative Banks and disallowed the assessee's claim for deduction u/s\n80P by making addition of Rs.5,15,78,931/- to the income of Rs.4,03,690

PARAG YASHWANT GADGIL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1886/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Parag Yashwant Gadgil, Vs. Dcit, Circle-4, Pune. 4, Sarthak Apartments, 1901 Sadashiv Peth, Pune- 411030. Pan : Acwpg2456J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.R. Bhagwat Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing : 14.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 24.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Addition Of Salary From Firm M/S. P.N. Gadgil Jewellers Rs.3,00,000/-. 2. Interest On Capital From Firm M/S. P.N. Gadgil Jewellers Rs.1,77,88,061/-. 3. Disallowance Of Donation Of Rs.1,00,000/-.”

Disallowance of donation of Rs.1,00,000/-.” 2 3. Briefly, the facts of the care are as under : The appellant is an individual deriving income from share of the partnership firm, namely, M/s. P.N. Gadgil Jewellers. The return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed on 31.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.4,40,47,940/-. The same

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA ,PUNE vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

690/- which is eligible for deduction u/s 80G of the Act. However, in the computation of income, the assessee has disallowed only Rs.1,65,88,790/-. The Assessing Officer therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the differential amount of Rs.28,08,900/- should not be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

690/- which is eligible for deduction u/s 80G of the Act. However, in the computation of income, the assessee has disallowed only Rs.1,65,88,790/-. The Assessing Officer therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the differential amount of Rs.28,08,900/- should not be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee

ANANT MATE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1674 To 1678/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2008-09 & 2010-11

disallowance of any claim was made. b) That there was no detection of any income during the search proceeding or during post search inquiry or during assessment proceeding. c) That there was no admission of additional income during the search or after the search. d) That there was no seizure of valuables or books of accounts or documents. e) That