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

section 68 of the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no specific finding by ld.CIT(A). 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various issues including the legal issue and claimed that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

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

section 68 of the Act. However, so far as the issue of assumption of jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act is concerned, there is no specific finding by ld.CIT(A). 8. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various issues including the legal issue and claimed that in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

BIZ SECURE LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sonjoy Sarma"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Biz Secure Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 1206, Sadashiv Peth, Circle- 1(1), Pune 411 030 Pune Pan : Aadcb6188L Appellant Respondent

2. The first issue raised in this appeal is against the partial rejection of the claim of deduction u/s. 80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) to the extent of Rs.10,90,23,322/-. 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama is that the assessee filed its return declaring total income of Rs.19.14 crore after claiming deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. BIZ SECURE LABS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sonjoy Sarma"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Biz Secure Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 1206, Sadashiv Peth, Circle- 1(1), Pune 411 030 Pune Pan : Aadcb6188L Appellant Respondent

2. The first issue raised in this appeal is against the partial rejection of the claim of deduction u/s. 80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) to the extent of Rs.10,90,23,322/-. 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama is that the assessee filed its return declaring total income of Rs.19.14 crore after claiming deduction

BIZ SECURE LABS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sonjoy Sarma"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Biz Secure Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 1206, Sadashiv Peth, Circle- 1(1), Pune 411 030 Pune Pan : Aadcb6188L Appellant Respondent

2. The first issue raised in this appeal is against the partial rejection of the claim of deduction u/s. 80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) to the extent of Rs.10,90,23,322/-. 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama is that the assessee filed its return declaring total income of Rs.19.14 crore after claiming deduction

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\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC:\nAppellant submits that, there the above two sections orient and aim\nto tax, two completely different streams of income. Here are the key\ndifferences -\na. Income of different assesses Vide S. 68, what is taxed is,\nan Assessee's own income, which such assessee portrays\nthrough some

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\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC:\nAppellant submits that, there the above two sections orient and aim\nto tax, two completely different streams of income. Here are the key\ndifferences -\na. Income of different assesses Vide S. 68, what is taxed is,\nan Assessee's own income, which such assessee portrays\nthrough some

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\n12. Conention-1-Substantial difference between S. 68 ν. S. 115BBC:\nAppellant submits that, there the above two sections orient and aim\nto tax, two completely different streams of income. Here are the key\ndifferences -\na. Income of different assesses Vide S. 68, what is taxed is,\nan Assessee's own income, which such assessee portrays\nthrough some

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 वष"

8. Ayambil fund - Rs. 13,996/- ---------------------------- Total - Rs. 4,55,446/- --------------------------- These above stated specific donations given by the donors to be utilized for specific purposes cannot be diverted for any other purposes by the assessee and are credited to the respective funds in the Balance Sheet , and utilization thereof is also reflected from these specific funds. We have gone

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, MAN,SATARA

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

68,141/- from its\ninvestments with Co-operative Banks. In the computation of total income\nsubmitted during course of scrutiny, the assessee claimed that it is a Co-\noperative Society and as such income of Rs.5,15,78,931/- from above-stated\ninterest receipts is deductible under section 80P of the Act. The Ld. AO held\nthat section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, TAL. MAN SATARA

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

68,141/- from its\ninvestments with Co-operative Banks. In the computation of total income\nsubmitted during course of scrutiny, the assessee claimed that it is a Co-\noperative Society and as such income of Rs.5,15,78,931/- from above-stated\ninterest receipts is deductible under section 80P of the Act. The Ld. AO held\nthat section

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

section 2(22)(e) is redundant. It is bound to be for a specific purpose. The question for determination is as to what is the purpose for which this Explanation. has been incorporated when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashokbhai Chimanbhai have held that the profits of business do not accrue from

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

8) of section 35AD, for any assessment year, no deduction shall be allowed under the provisions of section 35AD in relation to such specified business for the same or any other assessment year. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section,— (i) "export turnover" means the consideration in respect of export by the undertaking, being the Unit

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. KESHAVSMURTI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LTD.,, RAIGAD

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.936/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 5, Panvel …. Vs. Keshavsmurti Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., Shop No.1G/F, Anpurna Niwas, Shivaji Road, Tal – Panvel, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dist – Raigad – 410206 Pan: Aaaak7390L प्रत्याक्षेप सं./Co No.30/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 (Out Of Ita No.936/Pun/2015) Keshavsmurti Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., Shop No.1G/F, Anpurna Niwas, Shivaji Road, Tal – Panvel, … प्रत्याक्षेऩक/ Cross Objector Dist – Raigad – 410206 Pan: Aaaak7390L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 5, Panvel

8 CO No.30/PUN/2017 wherein similar plea was raised by both the learned Authorized Representatives. The Tribunal held as under:- “16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The assessee before us is a credit co-operative society, which is accepting deposits from its members and using the same for giving loans to its members. In addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

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

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

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

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

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

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds