DCIT,JALGAON vs. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION P.LTD, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

vii above) which works out to of Rs.4,72,34,084/- (Rs.1.45 crores + Rs.3,37,34,084). During the assessment proceedings, an amount of Rs.50 lakhs was offered by the assessee on these accounts. Further, AO made other additions too as mentioned at Sl.Nos. ii, iii, v, and vi of para 11 of the Assessment Order by either on account

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

56,172 as determined by the Assessee based on 'Net Income Method'. The Respondent craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objections on or before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose off the appeal

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

56,172 as determined by the Assessee based on 'Net Income Method'. The Respondent craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objections on or before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose off the appeal

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) vii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) viii) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 45 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 29. We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing any corroborative material

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

bogus; when no authority to such effect existed with the learned TPO. The learned DRP erred in not deleting the entire addition proposed by the learned TPO on the above analogy as such and further erred in not proceeding with the matter instead of leaving the matter at that point, considering the scope of powers u/s 144C

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

purchased. 11 This minor discrepancy in explaining the notings on seized paper is not fatal. 5. It is pertinent to note that precisely for the same reason no addition in respect of other entries appearing on the impugned papers have been made. Both the lower authorities have without any demur accepted the explanation give by the appellant on Page No.94

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

purchased. 11 This minor discrepancy in explaining the notings on seized paper is not fatal. 5. It is pertinent to note that precisely for the same reason no addition in respect of other entries appearing on the impugned papers have been made. Both the lower authorities have without any demur accepted the explanation give by the appellant on Page No.94

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

purchased. 11 This minor discrepancy in explaining the notings on seized paper is not fatal. 5. It is pertinent to note that precisely for the same reason no addition in respect of other entries appearing on the impugned papers have been made. Both the lower authorities have without any demur accepted the explanation give by the appellant on Page No.94