VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1, PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The appellant has also argued that the claim of commission payment was made on the basis of agreements and TDS

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The appellant has also argued that the claim of commission payment was made on the basis of agreements and TDS

MULAY BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

TDS. The Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings has recorded satisfaction for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter, notice dated 28-12-2010 u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was served on the assessee wherein both the limbs of section

RAJSHREE SINGH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

271(1)(C) at Rs. 3,62,431 ignoring the specific provisions of Explanation 4 to the said section that penalty is leviable on the amount of tax assessed as reduced by the prepaid taxes i.e. advance tax, TDS

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

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act is clearly attracted in this case. 07. From the facts of the case it has been brought on record that the assessee has converted the land inherited by the assessee form capital asset to stock in trade. The reply given by the assessee in his statement is reproduced below: "This land was inherited

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

c) to section 92B w.e.f. 1/4/2002. Then the question that comes for consideration is, as to, what is the arm's length rate of commission to be applied to the transaction of furnishing of corporate guarantee. The approach of the TPO for the purpose of benchmarking the transaction for corporate guarantee cannot be upheld. There cannot be universal application

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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

MANOJ S. GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1327/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Manoj S. Gugale 652, Shantisadan, Topkhana, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar …. Pan: Adzpg9595N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 3, Ahmednagar

section 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹ 4,39,162/-. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration had furnished return of income declaring total income of ₹ 4,52,640/-. The case of assessee was picked up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer noted that there was difference of TDS

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 801B(10), which requires interpretation of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority The texts as well as contexts of both the cases are altogether different and are streets away from each other. Ergo, the reliance of the Id. AR on this judgment is of no consequence in the present case

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 801B(10), which requires interpretation of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority The texts as well as contexts of both the cases are altogether different and are streets away from each other. Ergo, the reliance of the Id. AR on this judgment is of no consequence in the present case

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 801B(10), which requires interpretation of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority The texts as well as contexts of both the cases are altogether different and are streets away from each other. Ergo, the reliance of the Id. AR on this judgment is of no consequence in the present case

JAGDISH VISHWANATH KANKREJ,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

TDS. On the aforesaid additions, AO vide order dt. 30.08.2016 levied penalty of Rs.15,44,530/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.14.07.2017 (in appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)- 1/172/2016-17) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

section 801B(10), which requires interpretation of the financial year in which the housing project is approved by the local authority The texts as well as contexts of both the cases are altogether different and are streets away from each other. Ergo, the reliance of the Id. AR on this judgment is of no consequence in the present case

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section 271F, section 271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section 271F, section 271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order