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

reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, 254, 260

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

reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, 254, 260

VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

260 CTR 225 (Delhi) "29. The non obstante clause indicates that the provisions of 115JA of the Act would override the other provisions of the Act for computation of taxable income in certain cases falling within the sweep of section 115JA. Section 115JA of the Act is a special provision to calculate taxable income in certain cases. The levy

M/S. VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

260 CTR 225 (Delhi) "29. The non obstante clause indicates that the provisions of 115JA of the Act would override the other provisions of the Act for computation of taxable income in certain cases falling within the sweep of section 115JA. Section 115JA of the Act is a special provision to calculate taxable income in certain cases. The levy

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against an order dated 13 March 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant/Revenue assailing an order dated 31 March 2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short, "CIT (A)") has been rejected. The principal ground as raised

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 1324, as the case may be, shall abate." What is clear from this is that Section 153A

SUDHAKAR BAJIRAO SHISODE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2780/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

reassessment making the following additions: (a) Disallowance of deduction under section 80C of ₹1,50,000; (b) Addition of ₹12,27,400 treating the purchase of a motor car as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. 3. During the relevant previous year, the appellant made genuine eligible investments under section 80C such as Life Insurance premium. The motor car purchased

CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN JADHAV,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1202/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Chandrakant Laxman Jadhav, The A.C.I.T., A/P Mahalunge, Chakan Talegaon Vs Circle-10, Road, Tal, Khed, Pune-410501. Pune. Pan No. Acjpj 0442 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

reassessment proceedings as well as issuance of notice U/s 148 of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has not raised any objection if the additional grounds are admitted for hearing because the additional grounds raised by the assessee are legal in nature. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record

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 :

260 ITR 417, 418 (Punj & Har.) ” Unquote. 4.10 The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Coffeeday Global Ltd Vs. Addl CIT 433 ITR 321 has held as under : Quote, “9. It is well settled legal proposition that where interest free funds are available to the assessee and were sufficient to meet its investment, the presumption is that

AYOKI FABRICON PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2155/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ayoki Fabricon Pvt. Ltd., 137 To 139, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Pune. Pan : Aabca5780F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 14.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.1,10,53,748/- U/S 32(1)(Iia) On New Plant & Machinery On The Ground That The Assessee Was Not Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Or Production Of Any Article Or Thing. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring The Fact That – I) The Details Furnished To The Assessing Officer By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Were Same As Were Furnished During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) & Therefore.

section 147 of the Act. 5 8. Explaining the background facts of the case, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment proceedings were finalized by the Assessing Officer, who passed the well reasoned order for the earlier assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12. In these assessment years, the assessee made a similar claim of additional

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

260 and Net gain will be Rs.250 (sale price Rs.260-Purchase price Rs.10). Also application form for subscribing the shares was attached with the said email. The image of this file is reproduced by the Assessing Officer at page 3 of the assessment order. Subsequently, it was found that M/s. Anax Com Trade Ltd. has been merged with M/s. Yamini Investment

R B DIAMOND HOUSE,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-1, RANGE -25, CIRCLE -1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- JALGAON

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

Section 69A.\nGround No. 6: Interest Disallowance Rs.1,54,43,569/-\n6.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have\nconsidered and deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,54,43,569/-\nbeing\ninterest on Cash Credit facility as the Cash Credit facility was\nproperly reflected

ABDUL REHMAN ABDUL RAUF CHOUDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(1),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

260 Taxman 171 (Bom HC) wherein the Hon’ble High Court deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchase where the books of accounts have not been rejected and sales not been doubted. Alternatively the appellant requested for addition of gross profit on the purchases. 3. Hence, the appellant is aggrieved by the order

ABDUL REHMAN ABDUL RAUF CHOUDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(1),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

260 Taxman 171 (Bom HC) wherein the Hon’ble High Court deleted the addition made on account of bogus purchase where the books of accounts have not been rejected and sales not been doubted. Alternatively the appellant requested for addition of gross profit on the purchases. 3. Hence, the appellant is aggrieved by the order