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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE vs. M/S SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (TRUST), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

120-B of IPC and further, it was dealing with "books of accounts". Whereas, in the case on hand, it is an income tax proceeding before a quasijudicial authority. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, in the case of Rangroopchand Chordia (supra), relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, while dealing with section

KALPESH RATILAL GARDHARIA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD- 2(3), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

120, the ITO Ward 2(3) Kolhapur holds jurisdiction over the new assessee. The PAN was migrated through ITBA computerised system u/s 127 of the I.T. Act, 1961, from ITO W-2(1), Kolhapur to ITO, W-2(3) Kolhapur.” There was huge cash deposit by the assessee, however, no return was filed by him. The original

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

DR. PRATAP PANDHIRANATH PATIL,PUNE vs. PCIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

120; (b) record shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Commissioner; 8 Dr. Pratap Pandharinath Patil (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO.,LATUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.676 & 677/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Yash Construction Co., Asst. CIT, Ajinkya City, Ambajogai Road, Circle-Nanded Latur-413512 Vs. PAN : AAAFY8593Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Department by : Shri Sourabh

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO. ,NANDED vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , NANDED

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.676 & 677/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Yash Construction Co., Asst. CIT, Ajinkya City, Ambajogai Road, Circle-Nanded Latur-413512 Vs. PAN : AAAFY8593Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Department by : Shri Sourabh

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2626/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sharad Shamrao Sawant, Assistant Commissioner of Aaditya Hospital, Main Chowk, Income Tax, Vishrambag, Sangli-416416 Vs. Central Circle, Kolhapur PAN : AQAPS3739G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Umeshkumar M. Mali Department by : Shri

PUNE ZILHA MADHYAWARTI SAHAKARI BANK SEVAKANCHI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PR. CTI -3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1086/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22

68,150/- and concluded the assessment. 4. Subsequently, ld. PCIT examined the assessment record and under the provisions of section 263 of the Act issued a show cause notice to the assessee on 18.02.2025 and main issues raised therein is that (1) assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act for the interest income from

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

120 TAXMAN 11 (Gujarat) had to decide question whether value of gold found during search is to be included in income where no explanation about source of investment made is provided. The Hon'ble High Court was also concerned with the question whether any deduction in relation to confiscated gold is to be given. The relevant assessment year

HAVELI TALUKA VEEJ KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 and the Hon'ble\nKolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Eastern Employees\nCooperative Credit Society Ltd. 390 ITR 524 took a view that the income\narising on the surplus invested in short term deposits and securities cannot\nbe attributed to the activities of the society and, therefore, not eligible for\nexemption u/s.80P

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP ,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

b) increase in the\n assessment year under consideration was\nonly on account of interest\n131\n42-44\nc)\nDetails of loans which existed in FY 2017-18\n(i.e. AY 2018-19) and c) Increase in the\n6\n45\nd)\nDetails of loans which were availed in FY\n2018-19 (i.e. AY 2019-20 and did not existed

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

4 10) The addition made by learned A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.1,18,82,797/- on account of credit in capital account of partner Shri Harleensingh Sethi u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 11) The addition made by learned A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.22,66,14,480/- on account

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

120; (b) record shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before