JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

TDS was deducted out of salary paid to the employees, tax due to the Department has been paid and there is no merit in the contention of Revenue authorities. He further pointed out that the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in ADIT Vs. M/s. Mark & Spencer Reliance India P. Ltd. (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

TDS was deducted out of salary paid to the employees, tax due to the Department has been paid and there is no merit in the contention of Revenue authorities. He further pointed out that the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in ADIT Vs. M/s. Mark & Spencer Reliance India P. Ltd. (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High

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

TDS provisions. As regards, the claim for allowance as revenue expenditure on product development expenditure of Rs.4,19,75,171/-, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the same following the Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE PANVEL vs. OUTABOX MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLP, GHATKOPAR MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

TDS challan. From the various details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that these were not sufficient to verify its genuineness. The assessee has not provided the complete addresses of the parties to carry out the third party verification. He observed that the different vendors of the assessee have same PAN and he reproduced some of the instances

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

1)(va) of the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pronounced subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, therefore, there is no error on the order of the Assessing Officer so as to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 10 11. So far as the applicability of provisions of section 269SS

NIHILENT TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

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

TDS, any advance tax, any tax paid on self-assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then, without prejudice to provisions of sub-s. (2), an intimation will be sent to the assessee specifying the amount so payable and such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand under

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

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

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

BHARAT KESHAVLAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

TDS claim vis- à-vis income offered to tax u/s.199(1) and deemed rent issue with 4 ITA.No.855/PUN/2019 Shri Bharat Keshavlal Shah, Pune. liberty to raise appropriate contentions before the Assessing Officer in consequential proceedings. Rejected in very terms. 7. This leaves us with the first and foremost issue of PCIT's revision directions regarding the applicability of interest

REKHA KISHORE BARI,DHULE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER-NFAC, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1667/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rekha Kishore Bari, V The Assessing Officer- Datta Bari Bhavan, S Nfac. Opp.Rana Pratap Statute, Dhule – 424001. Pan: Abepb3597J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2020-21 Dated 19.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Dated 31/08/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

161 taxmann.com 301(Delhi). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Basic facts of this case are as under : 4.1 The assessee had filed return of income for A.Y.2020-21 on 19/12/2020 declaring total income at Rs.42,87,800/- and agricultural income of Rs.20,000/-. The said return was processed under section 143(1

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

1 660/PUN/2023 Deccan Environmental ITO, 2013-14 Q2 Consultants Private Limited, TDS-1, Pune 5/43/14 Prasad Apartment, Erandwana, Pune City, Deccan Gymkhana S.O., Pune-411004 PAN : AACCD9040J 2 661/PUN/2023 Deccan Environmental ITO, 2013-14 Q2 Consultants Private Limited, TDS-1, Pune 5/43/14 Prasad Apartment, Erandwana, Pune City, Deccan Gymkhana S.O., Pune-411004 PAN : AACCD9040J 3 662/PUN/2023 Deccan Environmental

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

1 660/PUN/2023 Deccan Environmental ITO, 2013-14 Q2 Consultants Private Limited, TDS-1, Pune 5/43/14 Prasad Apartment, Erandwana, Pune City, Deccan Gymkhana S.O., Pune-411004 PAN : AACCD9040J 2 661/PUN/2023 Deccan Environmental ITO, 2013-14 Q2 Consultants Private Limited, TDS-1, Pune 5/43/14 Prasad Apartment, Erandwana, Pune City, Deccan Gymkhana S.O., Pune-411004 PAN : AACCD9040J 3 662/PUN/2023 Deccan Environmental

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

1 660/PUN/2023 Deccan Environmental ITO, 2013-14 Q2 Consultants Private Limited, TDS-1, Pune 5/43/14 Prasad Apartment, Erandwana, Pune City, Deccan Gymkhana S.O., Pune-411004 PAN : AACCD9040J 2 661/PUN/2023 Deccan Environmental ITO, 2013-14 Q2 Consultants Private Limited, TDS-1, Pune 5/43/14 Prasad Apartment, Erandwana, Pune City, Deccan Gymkhana S.O., Pune-411004 PAN : AACCD9040J 3 662/PUN/2023 Deccan Environmental

DECAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

1 660/PUN/2023 Deccan Environmental ITO, 2013-14 Q2 Consultants Private Limited, TDS-1, Pune 5/43/14 Prasad Apartment, Erandwana, Pune City, Deccan Gymkhana S.O., Pune-411004 PAN : AACCD9040J 2 661/PUN/2023 Deccan Environmental ITO, 2013-14 Q2 Consultants Private Limited, TDS-1, Pune 5/43/14 Prasad Apartment, Erandwana, Pune City, Deccan Gymkhana S.O., Pune-411004 PAN : AACCD9040J 3 662/PUN/2023 Deccan Environmental