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

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

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

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

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

9. We have gone through the provisions and observe that ld. AO has first sent the notices through post on the last known address of the assessee and when the same was returned unserved, ld. AO has deputed the Inspector and has affixed the notices at the last given address of the assessee. I therefore find that

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

9 Skyline Developers absolutely no right to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10) and the case laws relied are distinguishable, as here it involves a substantial amount of deduction claim and not merely an accounting entry. Hence, the action of the AO in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) at Rs. 11,61,57,413/- is sustained

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

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

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

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

801B of the IT Act which is beyond the scope of sec 143(1) of the IT Act and the Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same and completely ignoring the fact that the action of the LD AO is beyond the scope of sec 143(1). 3. The Ld AO erred in facts and in law in invoking

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

9. It is the alternate plea of the counsel of the assessee that the penalty, if any, is required to be levied only on the quantum addition which was sustained by Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, we find that the order dated 09.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act, additions of Rs.15

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

9. It is the alternate plea of the counsel of the assessee that the penalty, if any, is required to be levied only on the quantum addition which was sustained by Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, we find that the order dated 09.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act, additions of Rs.15

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

9. It is the alternate plea of the counsel of the assessee that the penalty, if any, is required to be levied only on the quantum addition which was sustained by Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, we find that the order dated 09.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act, additions of Rs.15

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

9. It is the alternate plea of the counsel of the assessee that the penalty, if any, is required to be levied only on the quantum addition which was sustained by Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, we find that the order dated 09.03.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act, additions of Rs.15