BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

vii. Refund Claim viii. Business Loss ix. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment x. Disallowance u/s 40A(7) (Gratuity provision) xi. Expenses incurred for Earning Exempt Income xii. Excess Contribution to Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund xiii. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xiv. Business Expenses 3. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

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

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

36. Coming to grounds of appeal No.6 to 8, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the observations of CIT(A) at page 23 and pointed out that the assessee had not supplied information and even the nature of services were not clear, so the question was of make available. He strongly relied on para

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

36. Coming to grounds of appeal No.6 to 8, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the observations of CIT(A) at page 23 and pointed out that the assessee had not supplied information and even the nature of services were not clear, so the question was of make available. He strongly relied on para

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

36. Coming to grounds of appeal No.6 to 8, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the observations of CIT(A) at page 23 and pointed out that the assessee had not supplied information and even the nature of services were not clear, so the question was of make available. He strongly relied on para

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

36. Coming to grounds of appeal No.6 to 8, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the observations of CIT(A) at page 23 and pointed out that the assessee had not supplied information and even the nature of services were not clear, so the question was of make available. He strongly relied on para

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI, WARD HINGOLI (CAMP AT PARBHANI) vs. VISHWAS AGRO PRODUCT PVT LTD, PARBHANI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and this ground of appeal is accordingly allowed. 2. Ground No.-2: pertain to the addition of Rs.7,26,386/- on payment made to M/s Franco Italy by M/s. Pranav International Ltd. as bogus. The AO disallowed the amount of Rs.7,23,386/- which was incurred by appellant company towards spare parts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended provisions of section 36(1)(vii

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

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

68 of the Act is\nhereby confirmed. This ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.”\n19. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the\nrecord placed before us. In Ground No.1, assessee has raised\nthe issue that 1d.CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of\nRs.97,61,190/- made by the AO denying the claim of business\nloss/bad debt

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

68 of the Act is\nhereby confirmed. This ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.”\n\n19. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the\nrecord placed before us. In Ground No.1, assessee has raised\nthe issue that 1d.CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of\nRs.97,61,190/- made by the AO denying the claim of business\nloss/bad debt

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

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

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

36 (1)(vii). 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 9. Ground of appeal no.1 challenges the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that while deciding this issue raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) had travelled beyond the issue in appeal. Therefore