SURJITSINGH SEVAKSINGH BAGGA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

145&.282/-. Again the addition made in the assessment order in itself is for wrong assessment year. Hence penalty so levied be cancelled and just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. 3. Both the grounds being inter-connected are considered together. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee had shown long

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

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

Penalty proceeding under section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961\nfor concealment of income is initiated separately.\nDisallowance of interest u/s 36 of the I.T. Act of Rs.15,11,87,548/-" 6.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee apart from challenging the\naddition on merit challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

MADHUR BALASAHEB PATIL,PUNE vs. ITO WARD8(3), PUNE

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

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

section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby rejecting the duly audited books of accounts. 4. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite providing the documents and information as called for by the Assessing

MADHUR BALASAHEB PATIL,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE

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

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

section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby rejecting the duly audited books of accounts. 4. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case & in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite providing the documents and information as called for by the Assessing

TASTY BITE EATABLES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 337/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

penalty proceedings section 271(1) read with section 274 of the Act, without considering the facts of the case. 9. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 10. The appellant reserves the right to amend, alter or add to the grounds of appeal.” A.Y.2009-10 4. Shri Arvind Sonde appearing on behalf of assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

145 / PUN / 2016 and ITA No. 146 – 147 / PUN /2016, ITAT Pune. (Refer Page No. 133 – 148 of Paperbook for Case Laws) The following grounds of appeal were raised reproduced below: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IA

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

145 / PUN / 2016 and ITA No. 146 – 147 / PUN /2016, ITAT Pune. (Refer Page No. 133 – 148 of Paperbook for Case Laws) The following grounds of appeal were raised reproduced below: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IA

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

145 / PUN / 2016 and ITA No. 146 – 147 / PUN /2016, ITAT Pune. (Refer Page No. 133 – 148 of Paperbook for Case Laws) The following grounds of appeal were raised reproduced below: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IA

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

145 / PUN / 2016 and ITA No. 146 – 147 / PUN /2016, ITAT Pune. (Refer Page No. 133 – 148 of Paperbook for Case Laws) The following grounds of appeal were raised reproduced below: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IA

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

145 / PUN / 2016 and ITA No. 146 – 147 / PUN /2016, ITAT Pune. (Refer Page No. 133 – 148 of Paperbook for Case Laws) The following grounds of appeal were raised reproduced below: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IA

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

145 / PUN / 2016 and ITA No. 146 – 147 / PUN /2016, ITAT Pune. (Refer Page No. 133 – 148 of Paperbook for Case Laws) The following grounds of appeal were raised reproduced below: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IA

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

145 / PUN / 2016 and ITA No. 146 – 147 / PUN /2016, ITAT Pune. (Refer Page No. 133 – 148 of Paperbook for Case Laws) The following grounds of appeal were raised reproduced below: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing deduction u/s.80IA

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed certain details, based on which the ld.CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer, who proposed an addition of Rs.1,25,51,607/-. After considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer and rejoinder

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 13,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

145/- to its Associated Enterprise (AE) i.e. Vishay Intertechnology Asia Pte Ltd., Singapore (in short “Vishay Singapore”). The AO asked the assessee to explain why disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act should not be made for non-deduction of tax. 7 ITA No. 1969/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2014-15 11. It was explained that the Vishay Singapore has cross charged

AJAY SHANTILAL LALWANI, HUF,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.717/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

3 A.Y. 2010-11 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) by raising 17 grounds. During the proceedings before First Appellate Authority, Assessee made various submissions and the same are extracted in the impugned order as the need demands. Eventually, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\n\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n\n6.\n7.\nAppellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n6.\n7.\nAppellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n6.\n7. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants