M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

dividend income and allowability of capital loss despite transaction is not falling under section 94 (7) of the act holding it to be sham and fictitious transaction is devoid of any merit. Accordingly on the merits also, orders of the lower authorities are reversed and ground number 4 – 7 of the appeal are allowed.” 20. We find Jaipur Bench

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

dividend stripping held to be is not a sham and bogus and ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowells & Co. Ltd. (supra) cannot be applied. Similarly, after referring to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in McDowells & Co. Ltd. (supra) and Union of India & Anr vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr (supra

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

dividend stripping held to be is not a sham and bogus and ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowells & Co. Ltd. (supra) cannot be applied. Similarly, after referring to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in McDowells & Co. Ltd. (supra) and Union of India & Anr vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan & Anr (supra

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SACHIN GOVIND APTE, PUNE

Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1720/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, V Sachin Govind Apte, Ward-3(1), Pune. S. 759-63, Prabhat Road, Erandwana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aavpa9458P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 15.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.78,72,000/- Made Under Head Stcg & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of The It. Act, 1961? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon‟Ble Cti (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act, 1961?

deemed dividend u/s Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961? ITA No.1720/PUN/2025 [D] 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble CIT(A) erred in not complying with the provisions of Rule 46A(3) of IT Rules while admitting fresh evidence establishing the alleged dissolution of firm

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31/08/2015 declaring income of ₹ 30,190/- after claiming deduction u/s. 54F at ₹ 64,01,600/- and u/s. 54B at ₹ 28,80,560/- and has shown Long

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31/08/2015 declaring income of ₹ 30,190/- after claiming deduction u/s. 54F at ₹ 64,01,600/- and u/s. 54B at ₹ 28,80,560/- and has shown Long

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31/08/2015 declaring income of ₹ 30,190/- after claiming deduction u/s. 54F at ₹ 64,01,600/- and u/s. 54B at ₹ 28,80,560/- and has shown Long

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

capital of the Indian company is held by such Italian company). 5.3. Given that P&C holds more than 10% of shares of the Appellant, the tax on dividend (i.e., DOT) leviable on the Appellant cannot exceed 15 percent as per Article 11 of the Tax Treaty. 5.4. Thus, since DOT represents tax on dividend income, the Appellant should

FARUK RAFIK MUJAWAR,ICHALKARANJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ICHALKARANJI

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

gain from sale of immovable property and business income of Rs.6,53,339/-. The assessee also furnished audited balance sheet, profit & loss account and audit report in Form 3CB & 3CD duly certified by a Chartered Accountant, this audit report was duly uploaded on income tax portal on 31.10.2018. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

gain earned by the appellant on sale of shares of M/s. Pearl Agriculture Ltd. by holding that the said sale transaction of shares as bogus and non-genuine particularly when the appellant has provided all the basic evidences in support of genuineness of the transactions. 4. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

gain earned by the appellant on sale of shares of M/s. Pearl Agriculture Ltd. by holding that the said sale transaction of shares as bogus and non-genuine particularly when the appellant has provided all the basic evidences in support of genuineness of the transactions. 4. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

gain earned by the appellant on sale of shares of M/s. Pearl Agriculture Ltd. by holding that the said sale transaction of shares as bogus and non-genuine particularly when the appellant has provided all the basic evidences in support of genuineness of the transactions. 4. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

gain earned by the appellant on sale of shares of M/s. Pearl Agriculture Ltd. by holding that the said sale transaction of shares as bogus and non-genuine particularly when the appellant has provided all the basic evidences in support of genuineness of the transactions. 4. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 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)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

gains derived or any amount received, Petitioner shall not be liable to pay income tax or any other tax in the relevant years. Therefore Petitioner was not liable to 14 pay additional income tax under Section 115-O of the said Act. In the circumstances, Petitioner’s payments under protest need to be refunded to the Petitioner.” [Emphasized

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

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

capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State" The same is the position with respect of the other non-discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1 (1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

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

capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State" The same is the position with respect of the other non-discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

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

capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State" The same is the position with respect of the other non-discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(!), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

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

capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of the other Contracting State" The same is the position with respect of the other non-discrimination provisions. No such extension of the scope of treaty protection is AYs 2014-15 to 2020-21 envisaged, or demonstrated, in the present case. When