SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA B. KADAM, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD vs. SMT. ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T

SMT ASHA BHAGWANRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrait(Ss)A Nos.39 & 40/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. The action of Learned Assessing Officer is contrary to his own presumption that cash receipts from Dattatray N. Kotgire are cash loan entries therefore he initiated independent proceedings for initiating penalty under section 271D and 271E for violating the provision of section 269SS and 269T

RATHOD JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 68 doesn't arise. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact of incorrect levy of interest 234B of the Act on the entire assessed income while calculating demand. 5. The appellant may kindly be permitted to add to or alter any of grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 are not applicable, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the amendment brought in sub-section (2) of section 115BBE by the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 only: i) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 are not applicable, the provisions of section 115BBE are not attracted. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the amendment brought in sub-section (2) of section 115BBE by the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 only: i) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com

KISHOR VITTHAL KOLHE,JALGAON vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

section 68 of the Act, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.64,94,250/- being the difference between the cash balance as on 01.04.2016 and the cash balance as on 08.11.2016 by observing as under: 4 7. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under

WIRTGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Wirtgen India Private Limited Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru Gate No.301, 302, Bhandagaon Khor Vs. Road, Taluka Daund, Dist. Pune – 412214 Pan: Aaacw2816R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Prakash L Pathade, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-07-2025 O R D E R

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for 5 instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 8. If we consider the appeal filed by the assessee in the light of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

ROHINI GAURISHANKAR KALYANI,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Since the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 185 days before the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A), relying on various decisions did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

68-77of the appeal set). There was no adjustment to the book profit as per section 115JB of the Act as computed at by the assessee wherein BFL of ~INR 138.84 crore brought forward from AY 2013-14 was set-off in computing the book profit.  Thereafter, on 24 February 2021, the AO issued a notice

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

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

68-77of the appeal set). There was no adjustment to the book profit as per section 115JB of the Act as computed at by the assessee wherein BFL of ~INR 138.84 crore brought forward from AY 2013-14 was set-off in computing the book profit.  Thereafter, on 24 February 2021, the AO issued a notice

SOLAPUR DIST M S K SAMITI H MASTER T AND N T PATH MYDT PANDHARPUR,PANDHARPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H The Income Tax Officer, Master T & N T Path V Ward-2, Pandharapur. Mydtpandharpur, S 3980, Station Road, Pandharpur. Maharashtra – 413304. Pan: Aanas9890E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.05.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2019Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Assessee Was In Presumption That Co Operative Societies Income Is Exempt Under 80P Generally Maximum Co Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T & N T Path Mydt Pandharpur [A]

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which relied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar situation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file a return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section 142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

68,93,921 72,63,37,999 21. In the year under consideration, assessee claimed deduction in respect of technical know-how fee u/s.35AB of the Act amounting to Rs.16,19,41,319/- for the A.Y. 1998-99 in the return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act (Ref. table above). Out of this amount, Rs.3

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

68,93,921 72,63,37,999 21. In the year under consideration, assessee claimed deduction in respect of technical know-how fee u/s.35AB of the Act amounting to Rs.16,19,41,319/- for the A.Y. 1998-99 in the return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act (Ref. table above). Out of this amount, Rs.3