REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

TDS (Ground no. 4) to the assessee, the Ld.\nAR requested the Bench that these issues may be set aside to the file of\nthe Ld. AO with the direction to allow the claim of the assessee as per fact\nand law after due verification thereof.\n8.\nThe Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. AO/CIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. HEMANT BAGAREDDY MOTADOO, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS on payment of security charges amounting to Rs.1,15,275/- paid to M/s. Shani Security & Allied Services. We find the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as they stood at the relevant time read as under: “Amounts not deductible. 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall

HEM KIRAN DIESELS,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 V J & Sons, 1227 E Ward, Rajaram Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur – 416008 …. Pan: Aabfv0324M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle, Kolhapur

1)(d) of the Act to the respective Assessing Officers who were having jurisdiction over the depositors to conduct enquiry about the identity of the persons, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders. The said information has been collated by the Assessing Officer in respect of each of the lenders and is reproduced under para 4.2 of the assessment order

V J & SONS,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 V J & Sons, 1227 E Ward, Rajaram Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur – 416008 …. Pan: Aabfv0324M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle, Kolhapur

1)(d) of the Act to the respective Assessing Officers who were having jurisdiction over the depositors to conduct enquiry about the identity of the persons, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of lenders. The said information has been collated by the Assessing Officer in respect of each of the lenders and is reproduced under para 4.2 of the assessment order

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

CUMMINS INDIA LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

TDS claim in original return. The assessee had entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises, for which the Assessing Officer made reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(1) of the Act to determine the arm's length price of international transactions. The TPO in order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act proposed

UPPAL SHAH PROP-J K SUGARS,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax unpaid sundry creditors u/s 41(1) in respect of M/s Arpit Enterprises of Rs.16,14,500/- and in respect of M/s. V.S.N. Trading Co. of Rs.12,35,500/-. The factual background of the above additions is as under : During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR vs. UPPAL JITENDRA SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax unpaid sundry creditors u/s 41(1) in respect of M/s Arpit Enterprises of Rs.16,14,500/- and in respect of M/s. V.S.N. Trading Co. of Rs.12,35,500/-. The factual background of the above additions is as under : During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under

RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which he levied the penalty on account of surrender of income of Rs.10.74 crores. We find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that although the land was converted into stock in trade during the financial year

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

131,615 Spare Parts 4 Import of Traded Goods and Spare Parts 1,421,871,025 5 Import of Capital Goods and Machinery 73,975,858 6 Technical Services rendered 58,491,805 7 Technical Services received 191,654,869 8 Cost Allocation Received 15,126,588 9 Reimbursement received from Associates 38,032,427 10 Reimbursement paid to Associates

TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

131,615 Spare Parts 4 Import of Traded Goods and Spare Parts 1,421,871,025 5 Import of Capital Goods and Machinery 73,975,858 6 Technical Services rendered 58,491,805 7 Technical Services received 191,654,869 8 Cost Allocation Received 15,126,588 9 Reimbursement received from Associates 38,032,427 10 Reimbursement paid to Associates

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

131,615 Spare Parts 4 Import of Traded Goods and Spare Parts 1,421,871,025 5 Import of Capital Goods and Machinery 73,975,858 6 Technical Services rendered 58,491,805 7 Technical Services received 191,654,869 8 Cost Allocation Received 15,126,588 9 Reimbursement received from Associates 38,032,427 10 Reimbursement paid to Associates

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

131 ITR 597 the Hon'ble Court has expressed that there must not be an absurd or unjust interpretation. In an appeal propounding the theory of equity the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. J.H. Golta 156 ITR 323 has said that the statutory construction should result in equity rather than injustice. On the basis