B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B. C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B. C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-(TDS),- , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B. C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

TDS), Ghaziabad Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s eleven appeals for assessment years 2013-14 to 2016- 17, arise against the CIT(A)-3 Nashik’s separate orders all dated 26.07.2019 passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

TDS credit of Rs.4,02,541/- thereby claiming a refund of Rs.4,02,541/-. The return was revised on 06.03.2020 claiming income tax refund of Rs.2541/- and carry forward loss of Rs.3,95,51,713/-. However, the CPC did not allow the claim of carry forward 2 business loss of Rs.3,95,51,713/- as claimed in the return

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE vs. SHRADDHA & PRASAD JOINT VENTURE,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2665/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

Section 194C were not applicable for the purpose of TDS, without appreciating the fact that the work contract order was issued in the name of the assessee (JV) and re-allocation of the contract between the members of the JV would amount to sub-contracting. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

section 9(1)(vi), TDS liability can't be fastened on a retrospective basis considering the principle of Lex Non Cogit Ad impossibilia (law does not compel a man to do what he cannot perform). Various other situations 8 Kumar Kondiba Shingare in which, other Honorable Courts have taken a similar view as above, are also given

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

section 9(1)(vi), TDS liability can't be fastened on a retrospective basis considering the principle of Lex Non Cogit Ad impossibilia (law does not compel a man to do what he cannot perform). Various other situations 8 Kumar Kondiba Shingare in which, other Honorable Courts have taken a similar view as above, are also given

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

section 9(1)(vi), TDS liability can't be fastened on a retrospective basis considering the principle of Lex Non Cogit Ad impossibilia (law does not compel a man to do what he cannot perform). Various other situations 8 Kumar Kondiba Shingare in which, other Honorable Courts have taken a similar view as above, are also given

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

section 9(1)(vi), TDS liability can't be fastened on a retrospective basis considering the principle of Lex Non Cogit Ad impossibilia (law does not compel a man to do what he cannot perform). Various other situations 8 Kumar Kondiba Shingare in which, other Honorable Courts have taken a similar view as above, are also given

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

section 9(1)(vi), TDS liability can't be fastened on a retrospective basis considering the principle of Lex Non Cogit Ad impossibilia (law does not compel a man to do what he cannot perform). Various other situations 8 Kumar Kondiba Shingare in which, other Honorable Courts have taken a similar view as above, are also given

M/S. TATA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR 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.1433/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Tata Technologies Limited, Plot No.25, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hingewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaact3092N Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation)-Ii, Pune

239 ITR 587 (SC). Further, the assessee referred to section 90 of the Act and pointed out that where the DTAA has been entered into with a country, then the provisions of the Act or Treaty, whichever is more beneficial shall apply. He referred to the relevant extracts of provisions relating to the royalty as defined in different Treaties

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, KOLHAPUR vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION (JV),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.623/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward- 2(2), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction (Jv), 363/11, Balaji Niwas, Deep Bunglow Chowk, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaaar8625B Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 2, Pune Dated 09.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Holding That No Income Attributable On Contract Receipts Could Be Taxed In The Status Of The Aop. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Justified In Ignoring That The Assessee, Being A Separate Entity U/S 2(31) Of The It Act, 1961 & Having A Pan Should Have Prepared Its Own Profit & Loss Account As Well As The Balance Sheet Reflecting The Full Transactions Undertaken By It & Not Just Showing Apportionment Of Receipts/ Payments & Assets/Liabilities Between Its Members.

239. 6. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the AO’s order may be restored. 7. The appellant crave leave to add, alter, amend or modify the above grounds raised, any other grounds at the time of proceedings before the Hon. Tribunal which may please be granted.” 3. From the above