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

20 the Ld. CIT(A) has only allowed the capital expenditure as an application of income which is duly allowable while computing the income u/s 11 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the ground raised by the Revenue is infructuous and deserves to be dismissed. 64. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused

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

20 the Ld. CIT(A) has only allowed the capital expenditure as an application of income which is duly allowable while computing the income u/s 11 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the ground raised by the Revenue is infructuous and deserves to be dismissed. 64. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused

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

20 the Ld. CIT(A) has only allowed the capital expenditure as an application of income which is duly allowable while computing the income u/s 11 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the ground raised by the Revenue is infructuous and deserves to be dismissed. 64. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused

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

20 the Ld. CIT(A) has only allowed the capital expenditure as an application of income which is duly allowable while computing the income u/s 11 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the ground raised by the Revenue is infructuous and deserves to be dismissed. 64. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused

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

20 the Ld. CIT(A) has only allowed the capital expenditure as an application of income which is duly allowable while computing the income u/s 11 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the ground raised by the Revenue is infructuous and deserves to be dismissed. 64. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

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

119. The Circular of\nOctober 9, 1984, therefore, provides a test for recognising whether a claim\nfor interest can be treated as a doubtful claim unlikely to be recovered or\nnot. The test provided by the said circular is to see whether, at the end of\nthree years, the amount of interest has, in fact, been recovered by the\nbank

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

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

119 to ensure a uniform and proper\nadministration and application of the Income-tax Act.\"\n10. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance in a case of\nMercantile Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 283 ITR 84/153 Taxman 97 (SC), where\nsimilar question was raised before the apex court. The question was\nwhether the assessee is liable

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D of the Act. He argued since the approval was granted for addition u/s. 69C of the Act and the provisions u/s. 115BBE are applicable with a charging rate at 60%, there is no discrepancy or error in the tax rate applied by the AO, it is in compliance with the provisions

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

68 has accepted the same in a mechanical manner. 22. We find the provisions of section 263 of the Act read as under: ―263. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

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

119. The Circular of\nOctober 9, 1984, therefore, provides a test for recognising whether a claim\nfor interest can be treated as a doubtful claim unlikely to be recovered or\nnot. The test provided by the said circular is to see whether, at the end of\nthree years, the amount of interest has, in fact, been recovered by the\nbank

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. MARSH FINCOM PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1342/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Aurangabad. Vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Gold Crest, Ns Road No.10, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan : Aabck0760B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Quashing Proceedings U/S. 153A In Respect Of Assessee Where The Assessee’S Case Was Covered Under Section 132 Of The Act Dated 20.08.2014. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Made

section 68.” I find that the ADIT had made inquiries by issuing notices u/s 133(6) dt. 31-10- 2014 whereby all the 3 companies had furnished their replies confirming having acquired the shares. In support thereof they filed their balance sheet, bank statement highlighting the details of amount paid and the share allotment advise received by them. Even

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

20. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and engaged in business of development of real estate projects. It filed its original return of income on 31.10.2019 declaring a loss of Rs.1,22,14,57,394/- and claimed the TDS credit of Rs.4

KESRIMAL OSWAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

68 of the Act for unexplained cash credit received from Shri Shrikant Valekar. Income assessed at Rs.26,33,355/-. Though the assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but again could not succeed as the assessee could not place any explanation or evidence. Finding of ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order reads as under : “5.0 Findings and Reasons 5.1 I have

MOHAMMAD OSMAN MOHAMMAF HAROONMOTIWALA,AURANGANBAD vs. PCIT- NASHIK 1, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

20 years. The assessee was regularly filing the return of income for last 8-9 years by disclosing the presumptive net profit as per the provisions of section 44AD of the income-tax Act, 1961 and for all these years assessee's turnover was not exceeded the threshold limits for maintained the books of accounts and getting it audited

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

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

20,395 F Laxmi Vilas 1,94,82,438 3,24,31,438 G KUL aura 8,06,41,870 7,66,07,270 H Kumar Puram 3,09,53,228 1,52,13,248 1 Other advances 2,39,52,862 TOTAL 40,99,28,990 40,99,28,990 6.6.6 From the tabulation provided in the preceding paragraph

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. BEEKAY ENTERPRISES,, SOLAPUR

In the result, the legal ground taken in the assessee’s cross objection which goes to the root of the matter is allowed and the ground on merits therefore, becomes academic in nature

68 & 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4) The Ld. CIT(A)-7, Pune, ought to have dismissed the appeal of the assessee by recognizing the principle that if any expenditure (including purchases) is proved to be bogus under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the provisions of section 69C does not permit allowing partial expenditure. 5) Whether

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), PUNE vs. SURESH KUMAR LAKHOTIA , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Vs Suresh Kumar Lakhotia, The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), 3A/3B, Archies Court Pune. Shankersheth Road, Ghorpade Peth, Pune – 411042. Pune – 411042. Pan: Aazpl4337L Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Devdatta Mainkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting The Assessee'S Contention That The Additional Capital Introduced In Ay 2018- 19 Represents Accumulated Suresh Kumar Lakhotia [R]

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 09.11.2023 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee's contention that the additional capital introduced

M/S. CHHEDA ELECTRICALS AND ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

68,947/- by taking the amount of profit as per parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act at Rs.5.46 crore as added by the amount of Income-tax u/s.40(a)(ii) and Deferred tax liability. Thereafter, tax was calculated at 18.50% on the book profit of Rs.6.90 crore and the assessee paid/adjusted the amount

M/S. CHHEDA ELECTRICALS AND ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

68,947/- by taking the amount of profit as per parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act at Rs.5.46 crore as added by the amount of Income-tax u/s.40(a)(ii) and Deferred tax liability. Thereafter, tax was calculated at 18.50% on the book profit of Rs.6.90 crore and the assessee paid/adjusted the amount