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 r.w.s. 115BBE; and (d) not allowing set off of profit on trading in derivatives against brought forward losses. 3. That the order dated 15.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action

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 r.w.s. 115BBE; and (d) not allowing set off of profit on trading in derivatives against brought forward losses. 3. That the order dated 15.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

163 ITR 129 (Mad.). Therefore, we are of the view that the Ld. PCIT was justified in resorting to the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 12. Similar view has been taken by the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Starlite Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) which has also been relied upon

VINODKUMAR DHANULALJI SAWJI ,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

163 & 164 days in filing of the instant appeals in ITA Nos. 1415 & 1416/PUN/2024 respectively before this Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. Since the issues raised in both these appeals are common, first we take up ITA No. 1415/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 as a lead case. The modified grounds of appeal raised by the assessee vide

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

68 SOT 163]. 11. Facts being identical following the above decisions. I hold that the provisions of section 167B

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

68 SOT 163]. 11. Facts being identical following the above decisions. I hold that the provisions of section 167B

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

68 SOT 163]. 11. Facts being identical following the above decisions. I hold that the provisions of section 167B

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

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

163, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section. The first proviso to section 147 has no application in the facts of this case. The basic postulate which underlines section

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

68,500/-, we are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for want of evidence. We also find that there was requirement of legal assistance as well as requirement of legal consultancy and other title search activities before 7 Shri Rajendra L. Agarwal investment is made in a bungalow. In our opinion, furnishing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Ld. Counsel contends that the generation of Electricity falls under the ambit of production of any article or thing. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT – 2. Giriraj Enterprises Vs. DCIT 163 ITD 1 (Pune Trib.) (TM) 14.4 We heard both the sides

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Ld. Counsel contends that the generation of Electricity falls under the ambit of production of any article or thing. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT – 2. Giriraj Enterprises Vs. DCIT 163 ITD 1 (Pune Trib.) (TM) 14.4 We heard both the sides

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Ld. Counsel contends that the generation of Electricity falls under the ambit of production of any article or thing. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT – 2. Giriraj Enterprises Vs. DCIT 163 ITD 1 (Pune Trib.) (TM) 14.4 We heard both the sides

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Ld. Counsel contends that the generation of Electricity falls under the ambit of production of any article or thing. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT – 2. Giriraj Enterprises Vs. DCIT 163 ITD 1 (Pune Trib.) (TM) 14.4 We heard both the sides

SHARP DESIGNERS AND ENGINEERS INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

163 pages has already been placed before the Honorable "A" Bench of the ITAT. 5. Submissions - Appellant justifies the claim of deduction on following points. a. Provision of section 80-AC - The text of section 80-AC reads as under "Where in computing the total income of an assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHARP DESIGNERS & ENGINEERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

163 pages has already been placed before the Honorable "A" Bench of the ITAT. 5. Submissions - Appellant justifies the claim of deduction on following points. a. Provision of section 80-AC - The text of section 80-AC reads as under "Where in computing the total income of an assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHARP DESIGNER AND ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

163 pages has already been placed before the Honorable "A" Bench of the ITAT. 5. Submissions - Appellant justifies the claim of deduction on following points. a. Provision of section 80-AC - The text of section 80-AC reads as under "Where in computing the total income of an assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order be treated as null and void. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal