M/S. CHHEDA ELECTRICALS AND ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

80A(2) of the Act, if the gross total income is more than the aggregate amount of deductions under Chapter VI-A, then such total amount of deductions is reduced from it to find out the total income. If however, the aggregate amount of deductions under this Chapter happens to be more than the gross total income, then such

M/S. CHHEDA ELECTRICALS AND ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

80A(2) of the Act, if the gross total income is more than the aggregate amount of deductions under Chapter VI-A, then such total amount of deductions is reduced from it to find out the total income. If however, the aggregate amount of deductions under this Chapter happens to be more than the gross total income, then such

VIJAYSINGH J JADHAVRAO,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5),, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Vijaysingh Jaysingh The Income Tax Officer - 2(5) Jadhavrao Pmt Building Shivajinagar Vs. Swargate, Pune 411037 Jangali Maharaj Road Pune 411005 Pan – Aaqpj3021L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Hari Krishan Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 29.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2012-13 Is Against The Cit(A)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 28.07.2017 Passed In Case No. Cit (A), Pune-3/10424/2015-16 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act).

68 of the Income Tax Act by completely disregarding the supporting documents such as Bank account extract, the extract of the account of M/s Raviraj Realities and confirmation from M/s Raviraj Realities. 5.3 In Para 5.1 of the assessment order the Assessing Officer though has mentioned that the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act cannot be allowed

SHREE ADINATH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3035 To 3038/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1998-99 To 2001-02

68,930 when the cane was purchased at different prices as noted by AO himself at page 2 of his order. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) did not even allow deduction under clause 5A which the CIT(A)-V had accepted in Shree Dnyaneshwar pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SHREE ADINATH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3035 To 3038/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1998-99 To 2001-02

68,930 when the cane was purchased at different prices as noted by AO himself at page 2 of his order. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) did not even allow deduction under clause 5A which the CIT(A)-V had accepted in Shree Dnyaneshwar pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SHREE ADINATH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3035 To 3038/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1998-99 To 2001-02

68,930 when the cane was purchased at different prices as noted by AO himself at page 2 of his order. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) did not even allow deduction under clause 5A which the CIT(A)-V had accepted in Shree Dnyaneshwar pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SHREE ADINATH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3035 To 3038/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1998-99 To 2001-02

68,930 when the cane was purchased at different prices as noted by AO himself at page 2 of his order. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) did not even allow deduction under clause 5A which the CIT(A)-V had accepted in Shree Dnyaneshwar pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

AJINKYA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SEVAK SAH. PATSANSTHA, MARYADIT,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

80A (5) if\nthe claim under sec 10 provisions or deduction under heading C for certain\nincome is not made by the assessee in his return of income the deduction is\ndenied. As per sec 80AC deduction is allowed only if in computing the total\nincome of an assessee of any previous year relevant to the assessment\nyear commencing