AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY GAURI PLASTICULTURE PVT. LTD.,),JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

2(22)(e) is „advance or loan‟. Since, it is a deeming provision it has to be construed strictly. Therefore, the expression used in the section cannot be expanded to include other terms such as deposits to enlarge its scope. The relevant extract of the order passed in the case of Bombay Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

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

section 2(22)(e) limits the amount of deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profits of the lender company (i.e. M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. Since the accumulated profits in audit report of M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. was Rs.49,59,14,779/- accordingly deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company M/s M. B. Patil Construction

M/S. M.B.PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

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

section 2(22)(e) limits the amount of deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profits of the lender company (i.e. M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. Since the accumulated profits in audit report of M/s. Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd. was Rs.49,59,14,779/- accordingly deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company M/s M. B. Patil Construction

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

E account as 'income' only'. Categorising Appellant's 'donations' claim, as Section 68 specified 'income' would not have made any change in assessment. The Special Scheme of Taxation of Section 68 income u/s 115BBE at a Special Rate was introduced only from AY 2017-18 and onwards. Even the negative condition of denial

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

E account as 'income' only'. Categorising Appellant's 'donations' claim, as Section 68 specified 'income' would not have made any change in assessment. The Special Scheme of Taxation of Section 68 income u/s 115BBE at a Special Rate was introduced only from AY 2017-18 and onwards. Even the negative condition of denial

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

E account as 'income' only'. Categorising Appellant's 'donations' claim, as Section 68 specified 'income' would not have made any change in assessment. The Special Scheme of Taxation of Section 68 income u/s 115BBE at a Special Rate was introduced only from AY 2017-18 and onwards. Even the negative condition of denial

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 वष"

E) v. Basanti Devi & Shri Chakhan Lal Garg Education Trust in ITA no. 5082(Del.) 2010 for assessment year 2002-03 vide orders dated 19- 01-2011, ITAT, Delhi relying on ITAT, Delhi decision in the taxpayers own case for assessment year 2003-04 whereby the Tribunal held that the amount received by the tax-payer trust from its settler

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

e-filed its return of income on 16.10.2018 declaring total\nincome of Rs.4,03,690/- and claiming deduction of Rs.5,15,931/- u/s\n80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). The case was selected for\nscrutiny under CASS on the following issues : (i) investments/advances/loans,\n(ii) expenses incurred for earning exempt income, and (iii) deduction

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

e-filed its return of income on 16.10.2018 declaring total\nincome of Rs.4,03,690/- and claiming deduction of Rs.5,15,931/- u/s\n80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). The case was selected for\nscrutiny under CASS on the following issues : (i) investments/advances/loans,\n(ii) expenses incurred for earning exempt income, and (iii) deduction

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

22 to 31 of the Paper Book with its English transaction. The perusal of the balance sheet as on 31.03.2010 reflects the assets in the form of bank balance, cash, investments and other deposits along with the loan advanced to members, property held by the assessee and interest receivable on investments and outstanding loan. On the liabilities side, the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DHARIYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1440/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Pune.

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) were involved and the amount was brought to the tax by the Assessing Officer. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(Appeals) had accepted the contention of the assessee by treating the amount received by the assessee as Inter-Corporate Deposit and held that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

E. In order to comply with the condition of physical delivery of goods out of India as emphasized by the learned AO, UNICEF should first import the goods from India and re-export them back to India. This will be an unfeasible proposition particularly with cold chain logistics system required for transportation of vaccines and impractical exercise with additional cost

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, PUNE vs. ANILKUMAR POOLCHAND SANGHVI, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

68,87,160/- inter alia making addition on account of deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act vide its order dated 29-02-2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessee challenged the said assessment order before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held the AO is not justified in adding the amount of Rs.3

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

68 (placed in page 53 of the appeal paper book) on 6.10.2022 i.e. within one month from the end of month in which the Assessment order has been received and the penalty for disallowance of employees contribution to EPF amounting to Rs.16,61,049/- is levied for under reporting of income as per the provisions contained in section 270A

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

68,610/-. We find the Assessing Officer, in the order u/s 143(3) 9 dated 20.09.2021 treated the additional income of Rs.49,64,120/- as deemed income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 15. We find when the assessee challenged the order of the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07.11.2024 held that the said income

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SATISH DAMJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

22,959/- and income from other sources Rs.10,32,549/-. In the return of income the assessee claimed compensation received on account of acquisition of agricultural land as exempt and claimed refund of Rs.16,89,498/-. In scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer held that since the agricultural land was not under cultivation the land ceases to be agricultural

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DAMJI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

22,959/- and income from other sources Rs.10,32,549/-. In the return of income the assessee claimed compensation received on account of acquisition of agricultural land as exempt and claimed refund of Rs.16,89,498/-. In scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer held that since the agricultural land was not under cultivation the land ceases to be agricultural

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DHARAMSI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

22,959/- and income from other sources Rs.10,32,549/-. In the return of income the assessee claimed compensation received on account of acquisition of agricultural land as exempt and claimed refund of Rs.16,89,498/-. In scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer held that since the agricultural land was not under cultivation the land ceases to be agricultural