DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. SECO TOOLS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objections of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom.), which was also in relation to assessment being completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter, issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court also considered the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under section 54 and not 54E of the Act. (3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to disallow the claim on the ground that as required under section 54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest the surplus for a minimum period of 36 months

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under section 54 and not 54E of the Act. (3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to disallow the claim on the ground that as required under section 54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest the surplus for a minimum period of 36 months

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under section 54 and not 54E of the Act. (3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to disallow the claim on the ground that as required under section 54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest the surplus for a minimum period of 36 months

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under\nsection 54 and not 54E of the Act.\n(3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to\ndisallow the claim on the ground that as required under section\n54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest the surplus for a\nminimum period of 36 months

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under\nsection 54 and not 54E of the Act.\n(3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to\ndisallow the claim on the ground that as required under section\n54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest the surplus for a\nminimum period of 36 months

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under\nsection 54 and not 54E of the Act.\n(3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to\ndisallow the claim on the ground that as required under section\n54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest the surplus for a\nminimum period of 36 months

KRISH WINES,JALGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1,, JALGAON

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

143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the\nAct') was issued on 13.08.2018 by the ITO, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon which was duly\nserved on the assessee. Subsequently the case was transferred from the ITO, Ward\n2(2), Jalgaon to DCIT, Circle – 2, Jalgaon (now Circle – 1, Jalgaon) on 08.04.2019\nas per jurisdiction. Notice

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, MAN,SATARA

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

68,141/- from its\ninvestments with Co-operative Banks. In the computation of total income\nsubmitted during course of scrutiny, the assessee claimed that it is a Co-\noperative Society and as such income of Rs.5,15,78,931/- from above-stated\ninterest receipts is deductible under section 80P of the Act. The Ld. AO held\nthat section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, TAL. MAN SATARA

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

68,141/- from its\ninvestments with Co-operative Banks. In the computation of total income\nsubmitted during course of scrutiny, the assessee claimed that it is a Co-\noperative Society and as such income of Rs.5,15,78,931/- from above-stated\ninterest receipts is deductible under section 80P of the Act. The Ld. AO held\nthat section

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

143 or section 147, as the case may be, has been paid within the period specified in such notice of demand; and (b) no appeal against the order referred to in clause (a) has been filed. (2) An application referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made within one month from the end of the month

MANOJ JAIKUMAR TIBREWALA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

Accordingly. We make it clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to file all the relevant details in consequential proceedings. This last appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019 is allowed for statistical p...

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ss)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala Acit, Central Circle-1 Vastu Shilp, Ground Floor Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan Godavari Housing Society Vs. Gadkari Chowk Boys Town School Road Old Agra Road, Nashik Nashik 422005 Pan – Aakpt7009G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pamod S. Shingte Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

143(3) of the Act in the last assessment year; respectively. 2. We note at the outset that there is a delay of 800 days in filing this assessee’s appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019. He has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the same as attributable to beyond it control. The Revenue is fair enough to not dispute this

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

68,26,650/- by making an addition of Rs.5,02,970/- on account of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, to the income of Rs.11,63,23,680/- determined as per order under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. However, no disallowance under section 80IA was made by the Ld. FAO while passing

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

68,26,650/- by making an addition of Rs.5,02,970/- on account of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D, to the income of Rs.11,63,23,680/- determined as per order under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. However, no disallowance under section 80IA was made by the Ld. FAO while passing

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. KESHAVSMURTI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LTD.,, RAIGAD

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.936/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 5, Panvel …. Vs. Keshavsmurti Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., Shop No.1G/F, Anpurna Niwas, Shivaji Road, Tal – Panvel, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dist – Raigad – 410206 Pan: Aaaak7390L प्रत्याक्षेप सं./Co No.30/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 (Out Of Ita No.936/Pun/2015) Keshavsmurti Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., Shop No.1G/F, Anpurna Niwas, Shivaji Road, Tal – Panvel, … प्रत्याक्षेऩक/ Cross Objector Dist – Raigad – 410206 Pan: Aaaak7390L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 5, Panvel

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee filed Cross Objections against the appeal of Revenue. 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The Revenue in ITA No.936/PUN/2015

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 :

143(3B) of I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2018-19 by addingRs.3,55,23,487/- to the retuned income of nil instead of Rs.Rs.1,50,35,886 which was the excess of income over expenditure. 5. That the orders passed are bad in law as the appellant has been granted registration under section 12AB

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

143 which was also relied upon by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Amitabh Bansal (2019) 102 taxmann.com 229 (Delhi-Trib), where it was categorically held that section 292B cannot be invoked to cure the defect of wrong invocation of section 68 of the Act. If final assessment order is completed under a particular provision

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

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

143(2) of the Act in response to which the assessee submitted its reply. The assessee also filed objections against the reopening of assessment u/s 147 on 16.02.2022. The Assessing Officer disposed of the objections on 07.03.2022 as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs ITO reported