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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

house R&D facility y/s.35(2AB) , i.e. before 03-08-2010. b. in not allowing the weighted deduction on expenditure incurred for clinical trials amounting to Rs.5,45,49,486/-. 6. in confirming the disallowance of ‘demat charges’ amounting to Rs.4,28,524/- made by the Assessing Officer. 7. in upholding the disallowance of purchases of Rs.61,172/- by treating

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

house R&D facility y/s.35(2AB) , i.e. before 03-08-2010. b. in not allowing the weighted deduction on expenditure incurred for clinical trials amounting to Rs.5,45,49,486/-. 6. in confirming the disallowance of ‘demat charges’ amounting to Rs.4,28,524/- made by the Assessing Officer. 7. in upholding the disallowance of purchases of Rs.61,172/- by treating

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

house R&D facility y/s.35(2AB) , i.e. before 03-08-2010. b. in not allowing the weighted deduction on expenditure incurred for clinical trials amounting to Rs.5,45,49,486/-. 6. in confirming the disallowance of ‘demat charges’ amounting to Rs.4,28,524/- made by the Assessing Officer. 7. in upholding the disallowance of purchases of Rs.61,172/- by treating

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

housing boards of States and Development Authorities was taxable. The assessee explained that Tribunal had granted registration under section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2002 and appeals for four years starting from assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 had to be decided in line with directions of Tribunal allowing registration to assessee under section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

housing boards of States and Development Authorities was taxable. The assessee explained that Tribunal had granted registration under section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2002 and appeals for four years starting from assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 had to be decided in line with directions of Tribunal allowing registration to assessee under section

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

housing boards of States and Development Authorities was taxable. The assessee explained that Tribunal had granted registration under section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2002 and appeals for four years starting from assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 had to be decided in line with directions of Tribunal allowing registration to assessee under section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

housing boards of States and Development Authorities was taxable. The assessee explained that Tribunal had granted registration under section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2002 and appeals for four years starting from assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 had to be decided in line with directions of Tribunal allowing registration to assessee under section

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

housing boards of States and Development Authorities was taxable. The assessee explained that Tribunal had granted registration under section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2002 and appeals for four years starting from assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 had to be decided in line with directions of Tribunal allowing registration to assessee under section

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

housing boards of States and Development Authorities was taxable. The assessee explained that Tribunal had granted registration under section 12A of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2002 and appeals for four years starting from assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07 had to be decided in line with directions of Tribunal allowing registration to assessee under section

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

House Property 5,55,627/- Income / Loss from Business -9,85,95,156/- Income from Other Sources 3,246/- Gross Total Income Nil 6.5 However, the Assessing Officer has not analysed these transactions and AO has not carried on any inquiries. 6.6 The Assessee had filed an Affidavit before the AO during the Assessment Proceedings, claiming that erroneously the assessee

SHETH CHIMANLAL GOVINDDAS MEMORIAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

109 taxmann 66 (SC)\n8. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(Exemption), Assessee\nfiled appeal before this Tribunal.\n9. It is a fact that Assessee Trust is registered u/s.12AA of the\nAct. It is also fact that Prabodh Artha Sanchay is a related party as\ndefined in Section 13 of the Act. The same fact is admitted

SMT. ROHINI VALMIK GADHAVE,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -5, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Rohini Valmik Gadhave Vs. Pr.Cit-5, Pune C-Wing, Flat No.603, Mantra Properties, Moshi, Pune – 412105 Pan : Bkvpg9947G Appellant Respondent

Properties, Moshi, Pune – 412105 PAN : BKVPG9947G Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri B.C. Malakar Revenue by Shri Saradar Singh Meena Date of hearing 12-07-2022 Date of pronouncement 27-07-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee‟s appeal for AY 2015-16 arises against the PCIT-5, Pune‟s order dated 13-03-2020 passed in case

MANISHA VIKRANT SHAH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house property situated at Solapur was sold on 30.08.2016 for Rs.50,00,000/-. The cost of acquisition was stated to be Rs.53,00,000/-. The property was acquired on 16.02.2016. There was short term capital loss of Rs.3,00,000/-. Name of the purchaser, his PAN and his complete address was given. The three cheques drawn on Saraswat Bank bearing

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

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

Housing Finance Ltd. vs. PCIT, 161 Taxmann.com 213 iv) Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. vs. CIT, 109 Taxmann 66 v) PCIT vs. Clix Finance India P Ltd., 160 taxmann.com 357 vi) PCIT vs. SPPL Property Management (P) Ltd., 151 taxmann.com 103 vii) PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express P Ltd., 398 ITR 08 viii) Nipro India Corporation Pvt Ltd vs PCIT

MAHARASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,PUNE vs. CIT-1, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1177/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Maharashtra Cricket Association, 5Th Floor, Amar Avinash Corporate City, 10, Bund Garden Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaatm2192D Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

109 Taxman 66 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had mentioned about assumption of facts resulting in erroneous assessment, the Commissioner held that even if the Assessing Officer had gone through audit report on this point, in the absence of any question raised, the Assessing Officer must be said to have assumed the facts in the matter, which

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

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

Housing Corporation WIP Statement as on March-13 Sr No Project Estimated Cost to complete (Balance) 8 Total Cost of the Completion Percentage of Completion as on March- 13 9 Sale Value 10 Area Sold in sq ft. to sq ft. 11 Area Sold in March 12 12 Area Sold in Total Saleable Sold Area/Cost sq ft. April-12 Area

ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUNGNALAYA & RESEARCH CENTER,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

109] which in turn relied on the decision rendered in present appellant’s case by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 130 Taxmann.com 366 (SC), it is contended that the assessee has not categorized the rates for each service category i.e. (a) price charged for providing medical facilities free of cost/charity, (b) subsidized rates and (c) full rates