JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 14A, as there cannot be estoppel against law. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the grounds of appeal no.4 and 5 raised by the Revenue. Accordingly, these ground of appeal no.4 and 5 raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.20/PUN/2020 stands dismissed

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR BUILDER MUMBAI REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 14A, as there cannot be estoppel against law. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the grounds of appeal no.4 and 5 raised by the Revenue. Accordingly, these ground of appeal no.4 and 5 raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.20/PUN/2020 stands dismissed

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 14A, as there cannot be estoppel against law. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the grounds of appeal no.4 and 5 raised by the Revenue. Accordingly, these ground of appeal no.4 and 5 raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.20/PUN/2020 stands dismissed

NELSON GLOBAL PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE, MAHARAHSTRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

section 37 of the Act: Erred on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law by confirming the disallowance for the warranty expenses amounting to Rs.12,32,732 without appreciating the fact that these are actual settlement of warranty expenses with the customers of the Appellant. Erred on the facts in circumstances of the case

M/S. BAFNA JANGDA CONSTRUCTION,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1052/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Bafna Jangda Construction, C- 314, Business Court, Mukund Nagar, Pune-411037. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfb6141B बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward- 11(4), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri S. N. Puranik Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune (‘The Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.01.2011 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Lower Authority Has Erred Both On Facts & On Law In Rejecting Appellant’S Claim U/S 80Ib(10). Same May Please Be Allowed. 2. Lower Authority Has Erred In Excluding The Land Area Of 1,508.49 Sq.Mtrs. For Road Widening. As Total Size Of Plot Of Land Of The Project Is 4,722.45 Sq. Mtrs. As Such More Than One Acre. Hence Appellant Be Declared Eligible For Deduction U/S 80Ib(10). 3. A) Assessee Firm Denies Its Liability To Interest U/S 234B.

disallowance u/s 80IB(10) of the Act are as follows :- During the period under consideration, the appellant firm had developed one residential project, namely, “Padmaja Park” at Survey No.10, Katraj, Pune. The said housing project consists of two blocks namely Building A-1 consisting of 48 flats and Building A-2 consisting of 36 flats with a total area

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

disallowances in assessment u/s 153A in the absence of any incriminating material and without appreciating the fact that original assessment made u/s 143(1)(a) which is completed on the date of initiation of search get abated. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the learned Assessing Officer erred in adding

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

disallowances in assessment u/s 153A in the absence of any incriminating material and without appreciating the fact that original assessment made u/s 143(1)(a) which is completed on the date of initiation of search get abated. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the learned Assessing Officer erred in adding

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

disallowances in assessment u/s 153A in the absence of any incriminating material and without appreciating the fact that original assessment made u/s 143(1)(a) which is completed on the date of initiation of search get abated. 3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the learned Assessing Officer erred in adding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

disallowance of\ndeduction claimed u/s.35(2AB) at Rs.56,49,66,955/- without appreciating\nthe fact that the total expenditure claimed in assessee's return of income\nu/s.35(2AB) and eligible expenditure mentioned in Form 3CL later issued\nby the DSIR has substantial difference and needs further verification.\n3.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

disallowance of\ndeduction claimed u/s.35(2AB) at Rs.56,49,66,955/- without appreciating\nthe fact that the total expenditure claimed in assessee's return of income\nu/s.35(2AB) and eligible expenditure mentioned in Form 3CL later issued\nby the DSIR has substantial difference and needs further verification.\n3.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

disallowance of\ndeduction claimed u/s.35(2AB) at Rs.56,49,66,955/- without appreciating\nthe fact that the total expenditure claimed in assessee's return of income\nu/s.35(2AB) and eligible expenditure mentioned in Form 3CL later issued\nby the DSIR has substantial difference and needs further verification.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

disallowed.\n53.\nIn appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition made by the\nAssessing Officer.\n54.\nAggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in\nappeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:\n1.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi\nhas erred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

928/-. The said return of income was selected for scrutiny assessment. On noticing that the respondent / assessee has reported the international transactions in Form No.3CB, the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 8, Pune (hereinafter referred as the “Assessing Officer”) made a reference to the Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune, (hereinafter referred as the “Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)”) u/s 92CA

SMT. SUNITA G. DESAI,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, RATNAGIRI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2761/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt.Sunitag.Desai, The Income Tax Officer, Master Plaza, Jakadevi, Vs Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Khalgaon, Ratnagiri. Pan: Abopd 2868 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur Dated 01.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Ito, Ward-1, Ratnagiri (Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao) In Assessing Total Income Of Appellant At Rs, 50,34,254/- Instead Of Returned Income Of Rs. 4,05,200/-. 2. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Additionof Rs.33,79,054/- Made By The Learned Ao U/S 69C Of The Ita, 1961 For The Bogus Purchases From M/S. Adijin Enterprises & M/S. Hiten Enterprises; Without Appreciating That, No Any Enquiries Were Carried Out By The L-T Authorities In This Regard. 3. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur & The Learned Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That, The Said Bogus Purchases Of Rs. 33,79,054/- Were, Intact, Capitalized To Plant & Machinery & Depreciation Of Only Rs. 5,06,958/- (I.E. 15% Of Rs. 33,79,054/-) Was Claimed As A Deduction By Appellant During Ay 2009-10. The Learned

928 PAN: ANBPP2704H Gangaram TIN: 27880265244V Desai Total Rs.33,79,054 2.1 The AO claimed that these expenses have been debited by the assessee in Profit and Loss Account of the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to prove the genuineness of the impugned purchases. However, it is mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee only filed Ledger account