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

69B and as per the provisions of section 115BBE(2) no deduction of the same could be allowed to the assessee. 3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no bar in section 115BBE to allow deduction of the excess WIP declared in the course of survey in the earlier year and the assessee could claim

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

69B and as per the provisions of section 115BBE(2) no deduction of the same could be allowed to the assessee. 3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no bar in section 115BBE to allow deduction of the excess WIP declared in the course of survey in the earlier year and the assessee could claim

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

69B and as per the provisions of section 115BBE(2) no deduction of the same could be allowed to the assessee. 3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there was no bar in section 115BBE to allow deduction of the excess WIP declared in the course of survey in the earlier year and the assessee could claim

SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS ,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saitawadekarjewellers, The Pr.Cit, Pune-1. 1825, B2 Padma Talkies Bldg, Vs Opp.Urban Bank Bazar Peth, Chiplun – 415605. Pan : - Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assesseeisdirected Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1Dated 22.11.2022Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 27.11.2017Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pcit In His Order U/S 263, While Giving Effect To The Order Dtd.31.05.2022 Of The Honorable Itat, Erred In Making The Following Additions To The Income Determined Vide Assessment Order Saitawadekar Jewellers [A]

Disallowance on account alleged cash payments in violation of Section 40A(3). even though, as was substantiated in the submission to the Ld. PCIT, there isneither any violation of S.40A (3) nor the excess income declared during surveyhas remained to be disclosed, which fact was duly examined by the AO duringthe assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). The appellant therefore prays

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

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

disallowance of claim of agriculture income of Rs 5,52,310/- and addition u/s 68 of the Act treating the same as unexplained cash credit is unwarranted, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the Act and facts prevailing in the case. It further be held that no addition is warranted in the case of the Appellant. The addition

COMMON WEALTH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.977/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11

disallowance be made in the hands of assessee, on the basis of any reference made to the DVO. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sargam Cinema Vs. CIT (supra) had held that where the books of account have not been rejected, then no reference could be made to the DVO for assessing the cost of construction. 13. Applying

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEEPAK BABURAO VISPUTE, KOPARGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. So far as the disallowance of expenses are concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) gave

CYZA CHEM PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1),, PUNE

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

section 69B is squarely applicable. Accordingly, claim of set off of brought forward business loss (excluding depreciation loss) to the tune of Rs.1024521/- was disallowed

JIVARAM MAGAJI CHAOUDHARY,PUNE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 7, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1392/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.4, Road No.5, Snehdeep Palace, Tingrenagar, Pune- 411032. Pan : Aalpc3973B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By Shri Uma Shankar Prasad : Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable

69B so as to claim this cost as a deduction in the future year while selling off the said land. The additional expenditure of Rs 68,32,775/- has been incurred by the assessee over and above the cost of the land and it correctly falls under the purview of section 69C of the Act. 5. In view

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

69B in respect of such excess stock. Decisions where it was held that sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D are not applicable : 5.4. On the other hand, in the following decisions, it was held that if the sources of surrendered/ undisclosed income are explained, deemed income provisions under sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D are not applicable and consequently

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance of interest at Rs.11,60,000/-. We note that the assessee has given advance of Rs.1.45 crore to Prashasti Properties Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of property. However, interest @4% has been charged as against the prevailing market rate of 12%. We note that this issue has been examined by the ld. AO and he has found that