RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 147 i.e. reassessment, to the extent that these proceedings are for the benefit of revenue and not that of the assessee. Therefore, assessee could not be permitted to convert such reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision in disguise and seek relief in respect of depreciation earlier not claimed in original return of income. 17. Thus

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 147 i.e. reassessment, to the extent that these proceedings are for the benefit of revenue and not that of the assessee. Therefore, assessee could not be permitted to convert such reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision in disguise and seek relief in respect of depreciation earlier not claimed in original return of income. 17. Thus

ORBIT ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD),,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 14A and the application of Rule 8D are as under : “30. As we have already noticed, sub-s. (2) of s. 14A of the said Act refers to the method of determination of the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. The expression used is—"such method as may be prescribed". We have already mentioned above that

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable in the case of Corporation or Body Corporate. He further noted that section 43B allows for deduction any such sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of Tribunal recomputed the total income, as a result there was net business loss of Rs.13,00,25,239/-. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 14-12-2009 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 held that the business loss is allowed to be carried forward. 2.2 Thereafter

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of Tribunal recomputed the total income, as a result there was net business loss of Rs.13,00,25,239/-. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 14-12-2009 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 held that the business loss is allowed to be carried forward. 2.2 Thereafter

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of Tribunal recomputed the total income, as a result there was net business loss of Rs.13,00,25,239/-. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 14-12-2009 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 held that the business loss is allowed to be carried forward. 2.2 Thereafter

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of Tribunal recomputed the total income, as a result there was net business loss of Rs.13,00,25,239/-. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 14-12-2009 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 held that the business loss is allowed to be carried forward. 2.2 Thereafter

CYZA CHEM PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A read with Rule 8D and disallowance of Rs.1,07,993/- without having regard to the nature of investments and expenditure incurred. And further erred in not considering the Appellant’s contention that disallowance should be restricted to 0.50% of average investment on which dividend income is received which is computed at Rs.6,000/-. 2. erred in treating

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 :

14A read with rule 8D(ii) of the Rules and therefore, the same conclusion ought to have been applied to section 36(1)(iii) as well. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, the remand by the tribunal to the Assessing Officer to examine whether the investments were 14 Pune Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers Board [A] made

KENERSYS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

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

reassessment proceedings after considering the entire transaction of investments in mutual funds and dividend received on mutual funds during the relevant period has made statutory disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. 5 ITA No. 943/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2009-10 5. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. PRABHA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. Prabha Farms Private Aurangabad. Limited, Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent C. O. No.07/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1748/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Prabha Farms Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Limited, Aurangabad. Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

reassessment order however an appeal was preferred before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC against the penalty order dated 27.09.2022. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed the appeal by deleting the penalty levied at Rs.72,93,114/- and this is the order against which the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal

THE ITO, WARD-8(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SILICON SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3017/Ahd/2014 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

14A. The CIT(A) ought to have taken this issue into consideration when this issue was brought to his notice. 7. For these and such other reasons as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. We first of all come