KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

801B, section 80IC, section 80ID or section 801E, unless the return of income by the assessee is furnished on or before the due date specified under Section 139(1). Exact wordings of the Act is reproduced here for ready reference: 25. For section 80AC of the Income-tax Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:- 80AC. Deduction

SUYOJIT GARDEN,NASHIK vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2206/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs Ito, Ward - Suyojit Garden, F-1/2, Suyojit Height, 2(1), Nashik Opp. Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Sharanpur Road, Nashik-422002 Maharashtra Pan-Abdfs6680A Appellant Respondent

disallowed as a deduction under Section 801B(10) and brought to tax as regular business income. 5.7 I have carefully

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. MS S S LANDMARKS, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.977 & 972/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. S. S. Landmarks, Pune Unit U, Shakti Chamber, S.No.77-1/1A/1/3, Sangamwadi, Pune 411 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aadas1463K Appellant Respondent

section 801B(10) (a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) did not err in concluding that the facts of the assessee's case are identical with those in the case of Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. Vs CIT, [284 CTR 43 (Bombay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. MS S S LANDMARKS, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.977 & 972/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. S. S. Landmarks, Pune Unit U, Shakti Chamber, S.No.77-1/1A/1/3, Sangamwadi, Pune 411 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aadas1463K Appellant Respondent

section 801B(10) (a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) did not err in concluding that the facts of the assessee's case are identical with those in the case of Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. Vs CIT, [284 CTR 43 (Bombay

DCIT CIRCLE-1, NASHIK vs. JYOTI PAPER UDYOG LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

801B etc. Thus, it is observed that the payments made by the appellant to the four related parties u/s 40A(2), exceeding Rs.5 crore fell within the scope of Specified Domestic Transactions (SDT\") as defined under clause (i) of section 92BA as existing on the Statute Books during/for the relevant period. The transactions entered with the related parties

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

disallowance and the same reads as under : “1. Introduction and Background 1. M/s. Skyline Developers ("Skyline") is a partnership firm engaged in the business of builders and developers. 2. Skyline entered into a Development Agreement with Kausar Baug Co-Operative Housing Society on 12/04/2000 (confirmed on 12/05/2005) to construct buildings for the society members and, in lieu thereof, secured

ABHISHEK BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE PANVEL, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 801B (10) of the IT Act 1961. Therefore the claim of the assessee is rejected and the income of the assessee is computed as under : Income from Business of Profession : 66513648 Gross Total income : 66513648 Total income : 66513648 11. Further, we note that ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer observing as follows

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

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

disallowed. He also provided a copy of the Report of the Registered Valuer. He, however, rejected the explanation given by the assessee observing that the housing project was approved by the competent authority vide order dated 30.03.2007 which depicted that the assessee sought NA permission / approval for construction of residential house vide his application dated 21.12.2006. The housing project

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

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

disallowed. He also provided a copy of the Report of the Registered Valuer. He, however, rejected the explanation given by the assessee observing that the housing project was approved by the competent authority vide order dated 30.03.2007 which depicted that the assessee sought NA permission / approval for construction of residential house vide his application dated 21.12.2006. The housing project

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

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

disallowed. He also provided a copy of the Report of the Registered Valuer. He, however, rejected the explanation given by the assessee observing that the housing project was approved by the competent authority vide order dated 30.03.2007 which depicted that the assessee sought NA permission / approval for construction of residential house vide his application dated 21.12.2006. The housing project

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

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

801B (10) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground No 3 5. Without prejudice to above Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred on facts and in law in not allowing a pro-rata claim of section 80IB (10) with reference to the area constructed in housing project and eligible as per his opinion and interpretation of section. Ground

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

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

801B (10) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Ground No 3 5. Without prejudice to above Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred on facts and in law in not allowing a pro-rata claim of section 80IB (10) with reference to the area constructed in housing project and eligible as per his opinion and interpretation of section. Ground

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

disallowed. He also provided a copy of the Report of the Registered Valuer.\nHe, however, rejected the explanation given by the assessee observing that the\nhousing project was approved by the competent authority vide order dated\n30.03.2007 which depicted that the assessee sought NA permission / approval for\nconstruction of residential house vide his application dated 21.12.2006. The\nhousing project

SAHYADRI FARMERS PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.951/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sahyadri Farmers Producer Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Nashik. Company Limited, Survey No.1102/8, Behind Police Head Quarter, Adgaon, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aapcs1516D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-6, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “ (All The Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Each Other) 1. The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-6 Delhi Erred In Law & Fact In Upholding Disallowance U/S Boib(114) Amounting To Rs.8,73,57,770 Made By Learned Dcit, Cpc (Hereinafter

disallowing the deduction of Rs. 8,73,57,770/- claimed u/s 801B(11A) without taking into consideration the submission filed by the appellant for the year under consideration. 3. The learned I-T authorities ought to have appreciated that delay filing of Form 10CCB will not disentitle the appellant from an eligible deduction, considering the liberal interpretation of section

EMPIRE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.730/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Empire Developers & V The Income Tax Officer, Builders, S Ward-3(1),Pune. Krishna Dham, 117+121/4B, Lane No.12, Prabhat Road, Pune – 411004. Maharashtra. Pan: Aabfe4291N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe – Ar Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 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] For A.Y.2011-12 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act On 23/01/2025 Emanating From The Order U/S.154 Dated 07/01/2019 Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Ao Erred In Law & In Facts In Determining The Income Of The Appellant At Rs.35,01,876/-Instead Of Nil As Per The Return Of

section 250 of the Income tax Act on 23/01/2025 emanating from the Order u/s.154 dated 07/01/2019 of the Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. AO erred in law and in facts in determining the income of the appellant at Rs.35,01,876/-instead of NIL as per the return of ITA No.730/PUN/2025

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The appellant has also argued that the claim of commission payment was made on the basis of agreements and TDS deductions. and the disallowance arose only because the authorities did not accept the evidence as sufficient. It has further been contended that the disallowance relating to commission expenses is tax neutral in view

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The appellant has also argued that the claim of commission payment was made on the basis of agreements and TDS deductions. and the disallowance arose only because the authorities did not accept the evidence as sufficient. It has further been contended that the disallowance relating to commission expenses is tax neutral in view

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1, PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The appellant has also argued that the claim of commission payment was made on the basis of agreements and TDS deductions. and the disallowance arose only because the authorities did not accept the evidence as sufficient. It has further been contended that the disallowance relating to commission expenses is tax neutral in view

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The appellant has also argued that the claim of commission payment was made on the basis of agreements and TDS deductions. and the disallowance arose only because the authorities did not accept the evidence as sufficient. It has further been contended that the disallowance relating to commission expenses is tax neutral in view