DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

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

via) that the provision should relate to rural advances.\n2. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact the entire provision made has to be considered and not the provision relating to rural advances only be considered.\n2. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

via video conference and without providing an opportunity to the Appellant to file a written submission in response to the Show-cause notice. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Ld. DRP’) erred in upholding the same by contending that there was no denial of opportunity to the appellant.  Further, the Ld. DRP erred in not providing an opportunity to the appellant to provide

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA ,PUNE vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

via) that the provision should relate to rural advances. 2.3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact the entire provision made has to be considered and not the provision relating to rural advances only be considered. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian

DANA ANAND INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, AKURDI,PUNE

VIA has been claimed by the appellant in respect\nof the amount donated voluntarily to the donee out of its own volition and\nbenefit thereof has been claimed at the stage of computation of its total\nincome as per the provisions of Section 80A of the Act.\nII.\nDisallowance under section 41(1) of the Act\n3.\nThe learned

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]

VIA viz. Purchase document, Sale deeds or any other documentary evidences. 9. Please furnish the Power of Attorney.” In the other notice 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

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

via show cause e-notice have now explained with proper justification. Accordingly, in the light of factual matrix no adverse inference may be drawn and thus the returned income of the assessee is accepted.” 3. Thereafter, ld. PCIT called for the assessment records and after going through the same assumed jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act and issued assessee a show

ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUNGNALAYA & RESEARCH CENTER,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

transferred to Ld. CIT(E) jurisdiction. The Ld. CIT(E) vide notice dt. 24/03/2017 revived former cancellation proceedings and before culmination had granted reasonable opportunities to enable the assessee to rebut Revenue’s negative observations/findings. After analysis of facts with an elaborate discussion laid in para 4, the Ld. CIT(E) by the impugned order dt.28/03/2018 has finally withdrawn/cancelled

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Via SVP Circle, Goa Hotel, Lalgeri Cross & Shahabazarcross to Ring Road in Gulbarga City" Further, in the bill of Contract Receipt Bidar, Karnataka it is also clearly mentioned as: Name of Work "Work services for Resurfacing of Runway & Taxi Tracks, Renovating Rigid Dispersal and Associated works at 406 AFS Bidar" 7. He, therefore, was of the opinion that the assessee

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Via SVP Circle, Goa Hotel, Lalgeri Cross & Shahabazarcross to Ring Road in Gulbarga City" Further, in the bill of Contract Receipt Bidar, Karnataka it is also clearly mentioned as: Name of Work "Work services for Resurfacing of Runway & Taxi Tracks, Renovating Rigid Dispersal and Associated works at 406 AFS Bidar" 7. He, therefore, was of the opinion that the assessee

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Via SVP Circle, Goa Hotel, Lalgeri Cross & Shahabazarcross to Ring Road in Gulbarga City" Further, in the bill of Contract Receipt Bidar, Karnataka it is also clearly mentioned as: Name of Work "Work services for Resurfacing of Runway & Taxi Tracks, Renovating Rigid Dispersal and Associated works at 406 AFS Bidar" 7. He, therefore, was of the opinion that the assessee

SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, LATUR,LATUR vs. ACIT (EXMP.) CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

via) are required to\nobtain the approval of CCIT / PCIT. The trust is running schools which\nare mostly granted by Government in the year between 1990-2000.\nCertificates from School Education Department, Government of\nMaharashtra confirming the amount of grants distributed to schools\nrun by trust is enclosed herewith as Annexure \"E\".\n2) Perusal of the Pay sheets as claimed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

via Account Payee Cheques, held in a DEMAT Account for over 12\nmonths, and sold through a recognized stockexchange after payment of security\ntransaction tax. On further appeal, Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, criticizing the\nassessing officer's reliance on statements from 'entry operators' to support additions\nunder sections 68 and 69 as those statements were recorded in unrelated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

via Account Payee Cheques, held in a DEMAT Account for over 12\nmonths, and sold through a recognized stockexchange after payment of security\ntransaction tax. On further appeal, Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, criticizing the\nassessing officer's reliance on statements from 'entry operators' to support additions\nunder sections 68 and 69 as those statements were recorded in unrelated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

via Account Payee Cheques, held in a DEMAT Account for over 12\nmonths, and sold through a recognized stockexchange after payment of security\ntransaction tax. On further appeal, Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, criticizing the\nassessing officer's reliance on statements from 'entry operators' to support additions\nunder sections 68 and 69 as those statements were recorded in unrelated