LATE PRATAPSINGH KARTARSINGH WALIA REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAR HEIR MRS. AMARJEETKAUR PRATAPSINGH WALIA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

68 are not applicable to the facts of this case as no books of account have been maintained. The addition be deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the leaned AO and CIT(A) was not justified in allowing/upholding 7 days withdrawal preceding to cash deposit as a source of cash deposits. The addition

LATE PRATAPSINGH KARTARSINGH WALIA REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAR HEIR MRS. AMARJEETKAUR PRATAPSINGH WALIA ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

68 are not applicable to the facts of this case as no books of account have been maintained. The addition be deleted. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the leaned AO and CIT(A) was not justified in allowing/upholding 7 days withdrawal preceding to cash deposit as a source of cash deposits. The addition

FRESENIUS KABI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68,248/-. The Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order giving effect to the recommendation of the TPO. The assessee approached the ld. CIT(Appeals), inter alia, on the selection of the TNMM as most appropriate method. The ld. first appellate authority approved the view of the authorities below by relying on the order passed by his predecessor

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases on 21-06-2011. These assessments were completed u/s.153C r.w.s.143

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases on 21-06-2011. These assessments were completed u/s.153C r.w.s.143

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases on 21-06-2011. These assessments were completed u/s.153C r.w.s.143

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases on 21-06-2011. These assessments were completed u/s.153C r.w.s.143

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases on 21-06-2011. These assessments were completed u/s.153C r.w.s.143

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.

68, 69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

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.

68, 69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

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.

68, 69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

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.

68, 69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

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.

68, 69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

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.

68, 69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

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.

68, 69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

THE JALGAON PEOPLE'S CO.OP BANK LTD,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.698/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Jalgaon People‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd. 152, Polan Peth Dana Bazar, Jalgaon-425 001 Pan : Aacat1603M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

68,490/- separately to the profit & loss account as bad debts written off, but the same have not been added back to the computation of income. However, in view of the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, it is established position in law that in case of an assessee to whom provisions of Section

COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

248/- u/s 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) being one and one-half of the eligible expenditure incurred without appreciating the fact that the appellant had duly complied with all the conditions laid down u/s 35(2AB). The appellant hereby prays that the deduction under section 35(2AB) may please be allowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

section 10A of the Act on the increased income due to disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets amounting to ₹ 2.26 crores is though covered in favour of assessee by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (supra), however, since we have allowed the claim of assessee