AQUAPHARM CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2631 To 2633/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaeca7014R Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 8, Pune

capital expenditure. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee ITA Nos.2631 to 2633/PUN/2016 4 pointed out that payment to LSR Associates was made against registration charges for registering product before entering UK. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals

AQUAPHARM CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2631 To 2633/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaeca7014R Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 8, Pune

capital expenditure. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee ITA Nos.2631 to 2633/PUN/2016 4 pointed out that payment to LSR Associates was made against registration charges for registering product before entering UK. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

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

10B provided such deputation of manpower is for the development of such software and all the prescribed conditions are fulfilled.’ It was brought to the notice of the CBDT that the AOs were not even following the clarification given in the Circular dated 17.1.2013. Once again, the CBDT issued Instruction no. 17/2013 dated 19.11.2013 clarifying that: `The undersigned is directed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

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

10B provided such deputation of manpower is for the development of such software and all the prescribed conditions are fulfilled.’ It was brought to the notice of the CBDT that the AOs were not even following the clarification given in the Circular dated 17.1.2013. Once again, the CBDT issued Instruction no. 17/2013 dated 19.11.2013 clarifying that: `The undersigned is directed

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

10B and made a passing remark that the revised return of income filed by the assessee u/s 139(5) only substituted original return of income u/s 139(1) and cannot be C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 transformed as return u/s 139(3) in order to avail the benefit of carry forward and set-off of any loss under the provisions of section

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

10B and made a passing remark that the revised return of income filed by the assessee u/s 139(5) only substituted original return of income u/s 139(1) and cannot be C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 transformed as return u/s 139(3) in order to avail the benefit of carry forward and set-off of any loss under the provisions of section

AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

Gains required thorough examination by the AO. However, prima facie it is seen that the AO erroneously allowed the "Cost of Improvement" of Rs.1.88 crore (indexed) without conducting proper verification. The assessee claimed "Cost of Improvement" on the Capital Asset i.e. Land over a span of ten years (FY 2009-10 to FY 2019-20), although no substantial documentary evidence

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

gained from filing 3 Skyline Developers the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE vs. M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1794/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Vishram Developers, 61B/11, Zelum Apartment, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aagfv0995F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Ajay Singh / Deepak Sasar Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg

gain on sale of capital asset should be deposited before date of furnishing return of tax under section 139, in such a situation, section 139 cannot be meant only section 139(1), but it means all sub-sections of section 139 - Held, yes - [Paras 14 and 15] [In favour of assessee] ITO v. Nilima Abhijit Tannu

PRABHAKAR MANJAJI THAKRE vs. PRINCIPOAL C.I.T.-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12

capital gain from this transaction was shown of Rs. 14,68,380/-. However, the assessee claimed the same as exempt u/s 54EC of the Act. In support of his claim, the assessee submitted that a copy of the STDR with SBI for an amount of Rs. 15,46,000/- was furnished. However, the same is not a 6 Prabhakar

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section ,72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, 14[or sub- section (2) of section 73A] or sub-section (1) 15[or sub-section (3)] of section 74, 16 [or sub-section (3) of section 74A] , he may furnish

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. ADVIK HI-TECH PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1578/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Gat No.357/99, Chakan Talegaon Road, Vill- Kharabwadi, Tal. Khed, Chakan, Pune-410 501 Pan : Aacca3106E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune.

capital gains income as the business income of the assessee. 16. On hearing both the parties and considering the facts, we find that the need of honouring the entries in the books of account. No case is made out for disturbing the claim of the assessee. This is the case where only 55 transactions are involved and separate account

M/S ADVIK HI-TECH PVT LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1578/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Gat No.357/99, Chakan Talegaon Road, Vill- Kharabwadi, Tal. Khed, Chakan, Pune-410 501 Pan : Aacca3106E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune.

capital gains income as the business income of the assessee. 16. On hearing both the parties and considering the facts, we find that the need of honouring the entries in the books of account. No case is made out for disturbing the claim of the assessee. This is the case where only 55 transactions are involved and separate account

M/S. HONEWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

gains of an eligible business cannot be tinkered with by the Assessing Officer merely because they are more than the ordinary profits or that they are quite high. The existence of substantial or more than ordinary profits by itself does not sufficiently empower the Assessing Officer to disregard them and determine the profits which he may consider to be reasonably

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

gains of an eligible business cannot be tinkered with by the Assessing Officer merely because they are more than the ordinary profits or that they are quite high. The existence of substantial or more than ordinary profits by itself does not sufficiently empower the Assessing Officer to disregard them and determine the profits which he may consider to be reasonably

DADASAHEB TIRODKAR SHAIKSHANIK ACADEMY,SINDHUDURG vs. ITOD EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 13B\n12b\n13\nIncome not forming part of item no. 7 and 11 above\ni\nIncome from house property (3b of Schedule HP) (enter nil if loss)\n131\n0\nii\nProfits and gains of business or profession [as per item no. E 35 of schedule BP)\n13\n0\nin\nIncome under the head Capital Gains\na\nShort term

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1), , PUNE vs. M/S CAPEGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES I LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IGAGE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.41/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1), M/S.Capegemini Technology Pune. Vs Services India Ltd., (Formerly . Known As Igate Global Solutions Ltd., ) Plot No.114, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase- Iii, Midc Sez, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aabcm 4573 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe –Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Appeals For A.Y.2005-06 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order, Dated 09.03.2020 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-1/Dcit Circ.1(1)/77/2013-14/38, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act [In Short “The Act”].

10B provided such deputation of manpower is for the development of such software and all the prescribed conditions are fulfilled.’ It was brought to the notice of the CBDT that the AOs were not even following the clarification given in the Circular dated 17.1.2013. Once again, the CBDT issued Instruction no. 17/2013 dated 19.11.2013 clarifying that: `The undersigned is directed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE,PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY & HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

capital gains from sale of shares u/s 10 but by mistake, omitted to exclude them, revision could not be denied. The Hon’ble High Court while deciding the issue has observed as under: 11 CO No.19/PUN/2025 12 CO No.19/PUN/2025 13 CO No.19/PUN/2025 15. We find the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Ashrafi Devi Shiksha Samiti