JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

vi) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and based on the information about purchase and sale of property by the assessee received by the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO), notice

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

47,867/-. It is also an admitted fact that out of total interest paid of Rs.7,78,58,122/- to Gagan Ace Developers the assessee has restricted the same to Rs.4,89,96,119/-. It is also an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has not disputed the interest expenditure payment and has partly allowed

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

Housing Society, Vs. Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411005 PAN: AAHFS8598L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department by : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 25-06-2024 Date of pronouncement : 03-07-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Housing Income Tax Office, PMT Society, Shivajinagar, vs. Pune – 411 005 Bldg., Shankar Sheth Road, Maharashtra. Pune – 411 037. Maharashtra PAN AAHFS8598L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak For Revenue : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 12.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 13.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010- 2011, arise against

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, which states that transfer, in relation to a capital asset, includes, any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property

DADASAHEB TIRODKAR SHAIKSHANIK ACADEMY,SINDHUDURG vs. ITOD EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

vi)\n8g\nh\nExemption under section 10(23C)(via)\n8h\n9\nAmount eligible for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab), 10(23C)(iliac), 10(23C)(iiiad), 10(23C)(iilae), 9\n3328804\n10(23D), 10(23DA), 10(23FB), 10(24), 10(46), 10(47)\na\nExemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)\n9a\nb\nExemption under section 10(23C)(liiac

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

property under trust and the assessee had received such voluntary contribution from BCCI. He stressed that the principle was that you have to follow consistency. He stressed that where there was no change in facts how can the order of Assessing Officer, following the same could become erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The learned Authorized Representative

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

property Rs.85,63,967/-. v. Disallowance of expenditure relating to Khar Flats Rs.7,61,579/-. vi. Addition of Godown Rent Rs.1,22,484/-. Aggrieved by assessment order dated 26-09-2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowances made by Assessing Officer u/s. 40A(2

RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

property Rs.85,63,967/-. v. Disallowance of expenditure relating to Khar Flats Rs.7,61,579/-. vi. Addition of Godown Rent Rs.1,22,484/-. Aggrieved by assessment order dated 26-09-2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowances made by Assessing Officer u/s. 40A(2

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 55, 76 & 84. ACIT (2022) 444 ITR 97 Even assessments completed u/s 153A (Guj) dtd 31-01-2022 were reopened u/s 147/148 holding therefore that the non obstante clause in section 153A did not exclude the applicability of section 147/148. 3. CIT vs Anil Kumar Bhatia Paras 18, 19, 21 & 22. 24 taxmann.com 98(Delhi

SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(E), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashri Mukund Bhavan Trust Cit (Exemption), Pune 1105, Raviwar Peth, Mukund Vs. Bhavan, Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaats5170R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Mallikarjun Utture, Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 O R D E R

house hold activities), and Sannyasashram (renouncing material world), which is a materialistic arrangement for one social group to dominate another, and by reinforcing identity based on bodily categories. Thus, the entire concept itself is against the social development and not for any charity of the people at large at all. 2 Further verification shows that the Trust Deed contains

ASHOK NARAYAN BHOSALE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Narayan Bhosale, The Deputy Commissioner Of Ashok Narayan Bhosle Bunglow At Vs Income Tax, Kaveri Nagar, Pratham Housing Cirlce-8, Pune. Society, Wakad, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaspb 3588 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/03/2022

VI), Pune has erred as well as in facts while confirming the order of Ld.AO Circle 8, Pune making the addition of Rs.2,84,917/- under Rule 8D read with Sec. 14A in respect of dividend income being exempt u/s.10 since the assessee has invested the funds in shares and mutual funds out of surplus generated from business

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2),, PUNE vs. JAGTAP PATIL PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.35/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Jagtap Patil Promoters & Ward-8(2), Pune. Vs Builders, S.No.152, Pimple Gurav, Pune – 411061. Pan: Aagfj 0403 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suniol Ganoo – Ar Revenue By Shri M.M.Chate – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Pune For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)- 6, Pune Dated 04.10.2017 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2016 Passed By The Ito Ward 8(2) Pune U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Not Appreciating That It Was Only After Scrutiny Proceedings Started That The Assessee Paid The Mat. Thus By Filing Nil Return & Not Claiming Deduction U/S 80Ib(10) The Assessee Was Trying To Evade Payment Of Taxes. The Claim Of The Assessee That Filing Of Nil Return Was Clerical Error Does Not Hold Ground? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating The Ratio Laid

Properties Pvt. Ltd. reported in 370 ITR 305, wherein it has been clearly held that benefit can only be availed by the assessee if he has filed return of income on time. If the return has not been filed on time the benefits cannot be claimed. The decision has been rendered specifically with reference to Sec. 80AC?” 2. Brief facts

GAURAV RAJA PATHAK,PUNE vs. DCIT-CIRCLE1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

47,900/-. The assessment proceedings were completed on 22.03.2022 vide order u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein the CPC disallowed the set off of Rs.35,95,270/- being remainder of current year capital loss. 2 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the Addl/JCIT(A), who vide order dated