DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

section 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and has added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed certain details, based on which the ld.CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer, who proposed an addition

SHRI GANESH SSK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DCIT AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE , AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Ganesh Ssk Ltd. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle A/P Ranjangaon Khurd, Vs. Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar – 413719 Pan: Aaeas0636H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hanmant Dattatray Dhavle Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R

202/- to income of Rs.9,66,93,983/- which was then rectified u/s 154 of the Act by re-assessing the income at Rs.10,35,48,661/-. 2 3. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and thereafter before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal vide ITA No.176/PUN/2015 order dated 09.09.2019 remitted back

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

68,847/-, it is submitted that HUL is a distributor of the products of the appellant company and the discount was given to the HUL. It is further submitted that no remuneration was given to any HUL for rendering of any services and, therefore, the same does not partake of character of the commission/payment thereby attracting the provisions of section

SHREE SHIV SAHYADRI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shree Shiv Sahyadri Nagari V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Pathanstha S Ward-7(3), Pune. Maryadit, Sai Park Road, Dighi, Pune – 411015. Pan: Aaeas1417N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak Sasar – Ar Revenue By Smt. Shabana Parveen – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.06.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.15,60,115/- Claimed By The Appellant U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Alternatively, The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant From The Investments In A Co-Operative Bank Is Also Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant Crave Leave To Add, Delete, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw All Or Any One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

202 ITD 793 (Rajkot). Submission of ld.DR : 3. The ld.DR relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed that assessee had claimed deduction u/sec.80P of the Act in the Return of Income filed on 17.03.2020. Assessee’s claim of deduction u/sec.80P

ASHOK DATTATRAYA BHALERAO,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

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

202 on second floor was purchased for consideration of Rs.74,46,250/-. The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.1,79,68,189/- u/s. 54 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer restricted deduction to Rs.80,66,395/- in respect of one flat only. The ld. AR submitted that since all the three flats were in the same building the assessee

ABHIJIT ASHOK BHALERAO,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

202 on second floor was purchased for consideration of Rs.74,46,250/-. The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.1,79,68,189/- u/s. 54 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer restricted deduction to Rs.80,66,395/- in respect of one flat only. The ld. AR submitted that since all the three flats were in the same building the assessee

JAYANT DATTATRAYA BHALERAO,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

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

202 on second floor was purchased for consideration of Rs.74,46,250/-. The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.1,79,68,189/- u/s. 54 of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer restricted deduction to Rs.80,66,395/- in respect of one flat only. The ld. AR submitted that since all the three flats were in the same building the assessee

ANIL BANSILAL LODHA,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK - 1, NASHIK

In the result, it is directed that the order passed under section 263 be set aside

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

68 taxmann.com 22 (Mad) 2. Hiraben Babubahi Patel Vs. Pr.CIT – ITA No.700/Ahd/2019 3. Mohammad Sharif Siddiqui through legal heir vs. ITO – ITA No.1179/Mum/2022 4. Sheela Devi Vs. PCIT – ITA No.1853/Del/2021 5. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of ld.PCIT. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. In the instant case, it is a fact

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

68,12,295/- the net income over the expenditure was arrived at Rs.42,98,82,657/-. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) had issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking to justify the payment made to trustees, being interested persons in view of the provisions of section

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright