PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

property held under trust of any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year, for which assessment proceedings are pending before the Assessing Officer as on the date of such registration and the objects and activities of such trust or institution remain the same for such preceding assessment year” has been ignored. THE OBJECTS OF THE BOARD ARE : 2 Pune Mathadi

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

ARUNA SINGH ,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

156 of the Act to deposit the demand but it is\nnoticed that the appellant has not deposited the demand before filing of this\nappeal. The appellant, at sl. no. 16 of Form-35, has stated to have made\npayment of appeal fee of Rs.1,000/- only. At sl. No. 9 of Form-35, the\nappellant has offered 'Not applicable

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), PUNE, INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly\nallowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

house R & D activities. The Assessing Officer\nasked the assessee to furnish the details of capital and revenue expenditure\nincurred for R&D purposes along with the report given by the DSIR in form\nNo.3CL as required under Rule 6(7A) of the IT Rules. The assessee\nsubmitted necessary documents such as approval granted by the DSIR in\nForm

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

156 taxmann.com 605 (Bom), he submitted that\nthe Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the Assessing\nOfficer made an addition in respect of sale proceeds of shares as unexplained cash\ncredit under section 68, since shares were purchased by the assessee on floor of\nstock exchange and not from broker, payment was made through

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

156 taxmann.com 605 (Bom), he submitted that\nthe Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the Assessing\nOfficer made an addition in respect of sale proceeds of shares as unexplained cash\ncredit under section 68, since shares were purchased by the assessee on floor of\nstock exchange and not from broker, payment was made through

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. GRIHUM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

Housing Finance Limited ITO, Ward 1, Ahmednagar 602, 6th Floor, Zero One IT Park, Vs. Mundhva Road, Ghorpadi, Pune – 411036 PAN: AACCG2265N (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Nikhil Mutha and Abhilash Hiran Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 08-05-2025 Date of pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

house R & D activities. The Assessing Officer\nasked the assessee to furnish the details of capital and revenue expenditure\nincurred for R&D purposes along with the report given by the DSIR in form\nNo.3CL as required under Rule 6(7A) of the IT Rules. The assessee\nsubmitted necessary documents such as approval granted by the DSIR in\nForm

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

house R & D activities. The Assessing Officer\nasked the assessee to furnish the details of capital and revenue expenditure\nincurred for R&D purposes along with the report given by the DSIR in form\nNo.3CL as required under Rule 6(7A) of the IT Rules. The assessee\nsubmitted necessary documents such as approval granted by the DSIR in\nForm

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly\nallowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

house R & D activities. The Assessing Officer\nasked the assessee to furnish the details of capital and revenue expenditure\nincurred for R&D purposes along with the report given by the DSIR in form\nNo.3CL as required under Rule 6(7A) of the IT Rules. The assessee\nsubmitted necessary documents such as approval granted by the DSIR in\nForm

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house R & D activities. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details of capital and revenue expenditure incurred for R&D purposes along with the report given by the DSIR in form No.3CL as required under Rule 6(7A) of the IT Rules. The assessee submitted necessary documents such as approval granted by the DSIR in Form

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house R & D activities. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details of capital and revenue expenditure incurred for R&D purposes along with the report given by the DSIR in form No.3CL as required under Rule 6(7A) of the IT Rules. The assessee submitted necessary documents such as approval granted by the DSIR in Form

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house R & D activities. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details of capital and revenue expenditure incurred for R&D purposes along with the report given by the DSIR in form No.3CL as required under Rule 6(7A) of the IT Rules. The assessee submitted necessary documents such as approval granted by the DSIR in Form

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house R & D activities. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details of capital and revenue expenditure incurred for R&D purposes along with the report given by the DSIR in form No.3CL as required under Rule 6(7A) of the IT Rules. The assessee submitted necessary documents such as approval granted by the DSIR in Form

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house R & D activities. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the details of capital and revenue expenditure incurred for R&D purposes along with the report given by the DSIR in form No.3CL as required under Rule 6(7A) of the IT Rules. The assessee submitted necessary documents such as approval granted by the DSIR in Form

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MICO EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LTD., NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

156/- from saving bank account from Nationalized Bank totaling to Rs.1,54,21,304/-. According to the Ld. AO, since, the interest of Rs.1,54,21,304/- earned by the assessee is not from the Co-operative sector and is not operational income, the Ld. AO issued show cause notice to the assessee as to why the deduction claimed

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

houses\netc. in the Marvel Project and remaining amount was paid\nagainst some immovable properties at Paithan Road,\nAurangabad. In the statement, it was also stated that no such\nhuge cash was deposited in his bank account nor there is\npurchase of any land or other asset in cash which could\ncorroborate the receipt of such a huge amount. Further

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURNAGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

house for itself. However, in the Assessee’s case, it is seen from the perusal of email correspondence that there are instances where the Assessee has been charged for the services for which it would not have paid as an independent enterprise. - Mere description of the services without demonstrating the specific service rendered by the AE is not sufficient