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

47 term “export in relation to Special Economic Zones” to mean taking the goods or otherwise out of India by - land, - sea, - air, or - any other mode, - whether – - physical or - otherwise In the backdrop of the above provisions of the Act, we are required to examine the eligibility of the profits earned in respect of sales made to UNICEF

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 :

68 taxmann.com 152 (Cochin - Trib.)]- Para 7.2 / 7.3 (ii) Prem Prakash Mandal Sewa Trust v. ITO (Exemptions) - [(2021) 132 taxmann.com 269 (Raipur - Trib.)] (iii) Dera Baba Bhai Gurdas Ji Udasin Trust (Regd) (Mansa) v. ITO [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 278 (Amritsar - Trib.)] (iv) Alpha Educational Trust v. DCIT (E) [(2023) 150 taxmann.com 20 (Chennai - Trib.)] II. Proposition 2 : Where an application

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

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and also made further 26 CO No.43/PUN/2025 addition of the interest paid of Rs.17,80,059/- by invoking the provisions of section 37 of the Act. We find before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

v. Sadashiuva Vishampayan reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623, has also confirmed the that, principle the rules of natural justice require that a party should be given the opportunity of cross-examining a witness. 7.7 In addition, the following judgments advocate the above proposition: • Pr.CIT-3 vs. DKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., ITA 458/2016 dated 27/07/2016 (Delhi) • CIT vs. Sanjeev Kumar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

v. Sadashiuva Vishampayan reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623, has also confirmed the that, principle the rules of natural justice require that a party should be given the opportunity of cross-examining a witness. 7.7 In addition, the following judgments advocate the above proposition: • Pr.CIT-3 vs. DKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., ITA 458 /2016 dated 27/07/2016 (Delhi) • CIT vs. Sanjeev

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required

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

v. ACIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com is reproduced here as under: “5. On 31/03/2019, Respondent No.1 uploaded a notice under Section 148 of the Act and reasons for reopening the assessment on the ITBA portal, informing that the assessment for AY 2014-15 has been reopened and requested the Petitioner to file a return of income for that year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

v. Sadashiuva Vishampayan reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623, has also confirmed the that, principle the rules of natural justice require that a party should be given the opportunity of cross-examining a witness. 7.7 In addition, the following judgments advocate the above proposition: • Pr.CIT-3 vs. DKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., ITA 458 /2016 dated 27/07/2016 (Delhi) • CIT vs. Sanjeev

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:

V BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MICO EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LTD., NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

47,234/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Ld. AO further found that the assessee has made investments in Fixed Deposits in certain Nationalized Bank(s) and earned interest of Rs.1,53,46,148/- thereon and interest of Rs.75,156/- from saving bank account from Nationalized Bank totaling to Rs.1,54,21,304/-. According

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

47 onwards, has discussed the issue regarding eligibility of additional income for the purpose of S. 80IA(4) of the Act. The AO has held that the assessee cannot claim the deduction in the return filed u/s. 153A of the Act, the undisclosed income is not business income but the same is income from other sources the assessment was being

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

47 onwards, has discussed the issue regarding eligibility of additional income for the purpose of S. 80IA(4) of the Act. The AO has held that the assessee cannot claim the deduction in the return filed u/s. 153A of the Act, the undisclosed income is not business income but the same is income from other sources the assessment was being

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

47 onwards, has discussed the issue regarding eligibility of additional income for the purpose of S. 80IA(4) of the Act. The AO has held that the assessee cannot claim the deduction in the return filed u/s. 153A of the Act, the undisclosed income is not business income but the same is income from other sources the assessment was being

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

47 onwards, has discussed the issue regarding eligibility of additional income for the purpose of S. 80IA(4) of the Act. The AO has held that the assessee cannot claim the deduction in the return filed u/s. 153A of the Act, the undisclosed income is not business income but the same is income from other sources the assessment was being

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

47 onwards, has discussed the issue regarding eligibility of additional income for the purpose of S. 80IA(4) of the Act. The AO has held that the assessee cannot claim the deduction in the return filed u/s. 153A of the Act, the undisclosed income is not business income but the same is income from other sources the assessment was being

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

47 onwards, has discussed the issue regarding eligibility of additional income for the purpose of S. 80IA(4) of the Act. The AO has held that the assessee cannot claim the deduction in the return filed u/s. 153A of the Act, the undisclosed income is not business income but the same is income from other sources the assessment was being