MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP ,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

revise the same order u/s 263 of the Act.\n1.3 However, it should be considered that, the power of the\ncommissioner u/s 263 of the Act is in the nature of supervisory\njurisdiction. The same is there to correct an error which is prejudicial\nto the interest of revenue. The wording of sec 263 of the Act states\nthat

SHRI GANESH SERVA SEVA SANGHA SHRIPUR,SOLAPUR vs. CIT(E), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

u/s 142, there is no specific question. 5.3 Thus, it can be seen that the AO had not asked any question regarding the Loss claimed by the assessee. The Assessee has shown the Loss as under in the Return of Income : 36 Rates and taxes, paid or payable to Government or any local body (Excluding taxes o income) I Union

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

revision proceedings before the Ld. PCIT : 5 ITA No.945/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 3.7 Before the Ld. PCIT, challenging the validity of proceeding u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee submitted that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the assessee’s husband, Mr. Sandeep Satav has been substantiated by production of above details/documents and hence the assessment order is neither erroneous

GRANT MEDICAL FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

revision u/s 263 of the Act. While examining the issue, the Hon'ble court made distinction among following situations: (1) Situation where no enquiry was conducted by the AO: The Hon'ble court held that in such situation, the order becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not been made by observing as under. *11. The Assessing Officer is both

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN MAHARASHTRA OPEN UNIVERSITY,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,-EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

u/s 263 of the IT Act is not exercisable under certain circumstances. In this regard, we may now refer the relevant provision of section 263(1) explanation 1(c) which reads as follows :- “Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263(1)--- (a)-- (b)-- (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

revised return 26/03/2016 Date of issue of Notice u/s 143(2) 18/03/2016 Date of Amendment Omitting Specified Domestic 01/04/2017 Transaction u/s.92BA(i) Date of Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer u/s 92CA for 18/09/2017 Specified Domestic transaction by ACIT Date of Transfer Pricing Officer’s Order making 30/10/2018 adjustments to Specified Domestic Transactions ITA No.2033/PUN/2019 / Uttam Energy Limited [A] 5.1 Before

SAR SENAPATI UMABAI DABHADE NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PCIT-3, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

revision proceedings under Section 263 and allow the deduction as per law. We trust that our submission clarifies our position. We request you to kindly consider the above facts and grant appropriate relief to the assessee.” 5. Despite the above submission/contention(s) of the assessee, the Ld. PCIT held the order passed by the Ld. AO as erroneous

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

price. The assessee company accepted that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the revised return of income is not valid in law, as the assessee had chosen not to challenge this finding before the Tribunal. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 The ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had failed to take cognizance of provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

price. The assessee company accepted that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the revised return of income is not valid in law, as the assessee had chosen not to challenge this finding before the Tribunal. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 The ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had failed to take cognizance of provisions of section

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.9,41,77,133/- he made disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) at Rs.26,39,84,698/-. 3.1 Subsequently, the PCIT examined the record and noted that the AO has allowed deduction u/s.10AA of the Act at Rs.263,46,37,168/-. He noted that in the earlier years, i.e. for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17 such

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

price fixed as per earlier agreement to purchase. In this case, the purchaser THPCL had agreed to purchase the land from the appellant and other co-owners for consideration of Rs.34,937/-, as per agreement dated 10/03/1971. The 10% of consideration was payable on the date of agreement, 50% was payable upon handing over of formal possession and the balance

P Y C HINDU GYMKHANA,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

transfer pricing issue) is (a) exceeding Rs.25 lakhs in eight metro charges etc”. After issuing various notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act assessment proceedings were carried out and assessee made submissions 2 PYC Hindu Gymkhana to the details called for by ld. Assessing Officer (AO) through the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act issued

CARRARO INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.814/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 Carraro India Private Limited, The Principal B 2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon V Commissioner Income Karegaon, Pune – 412220. S Tax-1, Pune. Pan: Aaacc 5292 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha – Ar Revenue By Shri Ganesh Bare - Cit Date Of Hearing 26/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1 Dated 15.09.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Appeal Against Order Passed By Pr. Cit U/S 263 Of The Act Ay 2017-18

revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act, without appreciating that section 263 cannot be invoked unless the conjunctive conditions that assessment order passed is erroneous in law as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, are satisfied; 2. Erred in passing order under section 263 of the Act, by setting aside with a direction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

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

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

263 for assessment year 2003-04, section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Workman of Mangalore Port Trust Vs Mangalore Port Trust and others (1973) ILR 1973 KAR 272, the decision of Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 1090 of 1983 with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

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

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

263 for assessment year 2003-04, section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Workman of Mangalore Port Trust Vs Mangalore Port Trust and others (1973) ILR 1973 KAR 272, the decision of Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 1090 of 1983 with

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

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

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

263 for assessment year 2003-04, section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Workman of Mangalore Port Trust Vs Mangalore Port Trust and others (1973) ILR 1973 KAR 272, the decision of Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 1090 of 1983 with