SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SHIROL vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

40A(2)(a) of the IT Act. The case of Revenue in this regard was that this is the appropriation of profits and accordingly the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/- on account of disallowance for sale of sugar at concessional rates to members. Subsequently when the appeal against the quantum assessment order was dismissed

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

40A(2)(a) of the IT Act. The case of Revenue in this regard was that this is the appropriation of profits and accordingly the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/- on account of disallowance for sale of sugar at concessional rates to members. Subsequently when the appeal against the quantum assessment order was dismissed

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

40A(2)(a) of the IT Act. The case of Revenue in this regard was that this is the appropriation of profits and accordingly the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/- on account of disallowance for sale of sugar at concessional rates to members. Subsequently when the appeal against the quantum assessment order was dismissed

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

40A(2)(a) of the IT Act. The case of Revenue in this\nregard was that this is the appropriation of profits and accordingly\nthe Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/- on account\nof disallowance for sale of sugar at concessional rates to members.\nSubsequently when the appeal against the quantum assessment\norder was dismissed

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

40A(2)(a) of the IT Act. The case of Revenue in this\nregard was that this is the appropriation of profits and accordingly\nthe Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/- on account\nof disallowance for sale of sugar at concessional rates to members.\nSubsequently when the appeal against the quantum assessment\norder was dismissed

MCM DEVELOPERS,AURANGABAD vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

40A(3) and also addition of Rs.2,28,056/- on account of ad-hoc disallowance out of various expenses, accordingly the returned loss was reduced by total addition of Rs.2,31,42,056/-. 4. In the above said assessment order, the Assessing Officer, on the basis of seized documents found, that the assessee firm has sold 3 the flats

NANDU A.RAJPUT,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2832 To 2836/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2010-11

40A(3) of the Act. 4.2 In assessment year 2007-08, while making additions in respect of ‘On money’ and investment in farmhouse/bungalow at Khanapur, Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) on both the counts. 4.3 In assessment year 2008-09, the position is similar to assessment year 2006-07 and penalty proceedings were initiated in respect

NANDU A.RAJPUT,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2832 To 2836/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2010-11

40A(3) of the Act. 4.2 In assessment year 2007-08, while making additions in respect of ‘On money’ and investment in farmhouse/bungalow at Khanapur, Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) on both the counts. 4.3 In assessment year 2008-09, the position is similar to assessment year 2006-07 and penalty proceedings were initiated in respect

NANDU A.RAJPUT,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2832 To 2836/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2010-11

40A(3) of the Act. 4.2 In assessment year 2007-08, while making additions in respect of ‘On money’ and investment in farmhouse/bungalow at Khanapur, Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) on both the counts. 4.3 In assessment year 2008-09, the position is similar to assessment year 2006-07 and penalty proceedings were initiated in respect

NANDU A.RAJPUT,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2832 To 2836/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2010-11

40A(3) of the Act. 4.2 In assessment year 2007-08, while making additions in respect of ‘On money’ and investment in farmhouse/bungalow at Khanapur, Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) on both the counts. 4.3 In assessment year 2008-09, the position is similar to assessment year 2006-07 and penalty proceedings were initiated in respect

NANDU A.RAJPUT,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2832 To 2836/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2010-11

40A(3) of the Act. 4.2 In assessment year 2007-08, while making additions in respect of ‘On money’ and investment in farmhouse/bungalow at Khanapur, Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) on both the counts. 4.3 In assessment year 2008-09, the position is similar to assessment year 2006-07 and penalty proceedings were initiated in respect

RAMESH HARIBHAU GAWALI,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to the above and taking into consideration the disallowances made u/s 40A(ia) and 40A(3) no penalty should have levied as such disallowances do not partake the character of either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

u/s 92CA for 18/09/2017 Specified Domestic transaction by ACIT Date of Transfer Pricing Officer’s Order making 30/10/2018 adjustments to Specified Domestic Transactions ITA No.2033/PUN/2019 / Uttam Energy Limited [A] 5.1 Before proceeding further we will reproduce the unamended Section 92BA (prior to 1/4/2017) as under : Meaning of specified domestic transaction. 92BA. For the purposes of this section and sections

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED , JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

40A." He submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) read with section 129 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 01.11.2016, the assessee company vide letter dated 10.11.2016 had submitted the Tax Audit Report of the assessee company along with the Tax Audit Report, Audited Balance Sheet and Profit

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JALNA, JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

40A." He submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) read with section 129 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 01.11.2016, the assessee company vide letter dated 10.11.2016 had submitted the Tax Audit Report of the assessee company along with the Tax Audit Report, Audited Balance Sheet and Profit

SHRI. DUDHGANGA VEDGANGA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, KOLHAPUR

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

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES LTD.,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

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

penalty for late delivery of Gensets, therefore, the said expenditure is not allowable. 9.1 In respect of ground No. 4 of the appeal, the ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has paid commission to the tune of Rs.3,52,00,000/- during the impugned assessment year as compared to Rs.2,85,70,000/- in assessment

DHAVAL VINOD GADA,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Dhaval Vinod Gada Dcit, Circle – 5, Pune 101, New Timber Market, Vs. Bhawani Peth, Pune – 411042 Pan: Anjpg4733A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The land was purchased from Smt. Nenshi L. Shah, Shri Lalji K. Shah, Shri Shantilal Shah, who are the vendors and are residing in Mumbai. The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to Shri Manilal M. Gada on 02.03.2016 to submit copy of bank account and other details from