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

36,50,000 2013-14 82,774 24-12-2019 1,94,03,000 2014-15 1,92,197 24-12-2019 2,00,50,000 2015-16 72,591 24-12-2019 2,51,96,000 2016-17 16,254 24-12-2019 2

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

36,50,000 2013-14 82,774 24-12-2019 1,94,03,000 2014-15 1,92,197 24-12-2019 2,00,50,000 2015-16 72,591 24-12-2019 2,51,96,000 2016-17 16,254 24-12-2019 2

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

2,\nassessee has stated that provisions of section 68 of the Act are\nnot applicable to the facts of the instant case and that all the\namounts of donations are properly accounted and recorded in\nthe books of account credited as income in the Profit and Loss\naccount and they are fully disclosed in the return of income

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

2,\nassessee has stated that provisions of section 68 of the Act are\nnot applicable to the facts of the instant case and that all the\namounts of donations are properly accounted and recorded in\nthe books of account credited as income in the Profit and Loss\naccount and they are fully disclosed in the return of income

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

2,\nassessee has stated that provisions of section 68 of the Act are\nnot applicable to the facts of the instant case and that all the\namounts of donations are properly accounted and recorded in\nthe books of account credited as income in the Profit and Loss\naccount and they are fully disclosed in the return of income

MANOJ JAIKUMAR TIBREWALA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

Accordingly. We make it clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to file all the relevant details in consequential proceedings. This last appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019 is allowed for statistical p...

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ss)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala Acit, Central Circle-1 Vastu Shilp, Ground Floor Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan Godavari Housing Society Vs. Gadkari Chowk Boys Town School Road Old Agra Road, Nashik Nashik 422005 Pan – Aakpt7009G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pamod S. Shingte Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

36,756/-, @ 34% thereof i.e. the share to which appellant was entitled to at Rs. 15,76,497/-, in law. The A.O. erred in including current year's business profits of JREPL in calculation of accumulated profits. This is so because it is held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vis Ashokbhai Chimanbhai (56 ITR 42). that

KALPESH RATILAL GARDHARIA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD- 2(3), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 1522) of the I. T. Act, l961 for the purpose of dropping the reassessment proceedings? Further it is requested that: 1. The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. it is prayed that the above claims and allowances be allowed. 2. The assessee has also raised the additional grounds

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

Section 80HHC deals with deductions in respect of profits from export of computer software etc. 23. There also the words used are "export out of India". But to be eligible for deduction under the aforesaid provision, mere export out of India is not sufficient. What is to be exported out of India should be from India to a place

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

2. Deduction under section 36(1)(viia): As per section 36(1) (viia) of the Act "a scheduled bank [not being a bank incorporated by or under the laws of a country outside India or a non-scheduled bank or a co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co- operative agricultural

HAVELI TALUKA VEEJ KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

36 (Pune).\n2. Bhagyalaxmi Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Meryadit vs. ITO,\n14.03.2022.\n3. Haveli Taluka Veej Kamgar Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit,\nAssessment Order passed for the A.Y. 2014-15.\n4. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ahmednagar District Central Co-\noperative Bank Ltd., [2003] 264 ITR 38 (BOM).\n5. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Amravati District Central Co-\noperative Bank Ltd., 24th February

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act for the above amount. The appellant has submitted that all three ingredients such as, credit worthiness, genuineness and the identity of the share applicant have been proved and therefore, the addition should not have been made by the AO. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessment records were also obtained from AO and the same

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 36

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

2,06,26,470/- 18,41,485/- 51,76,783/- - 1,72,91,172/- 2009-10 1,72,91,172/- 8,77,708/- - - 1,81,68,880/- 2010-11 1,81,68

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

2,06,26,470/- 18,41,485/- 51,76,783/- - 1,72,91,172/- 2009-10 1,72,91,172/- 8,77,708/- - - 1,81,68,880/- 2010-11 1,81,68

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

2,06,26,470/- 18,41,485/- 51,76,783/- - 1,72,91,172/- 2009-10 1,72,91,172/- 8,77,708/- - - 1,81,68,880/- 2010-11 1,81,68

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

2,06,26,470/- 18,41,485/- 51,76,783/- - 1,72,91,172/- 2009-10 1,72,91,172/- 8,77,708/- - - 1,81,68,880/- 2010-11 1,81,68

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

2,06,26,470/- 18,41,485/- 51,76,783/- - 1,72,91,172/- 2009-10 1,72,91,172/- 8,77,708/- - - 1,81,68,880/- 2010-11 1,81,68

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

2,06,26,470/- 18,41,485/- 51,76,783/- - 1,72,91,172/- 2009-10 1,72,91,172/- 8,77,708/- - - 1,81,68,880/- 2010-11 1,81,68

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

2,06,26,470/- 18,41,485/- 51,76,783/- - 1,72,91,172/- 2009-10 1,72,91,172/- 8,77,708/- - - 1,81,68,880/- 2010-11 1,81,68