NATHA PANDIT RAUT,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Natha Pandit Raut Dcit, Circle 2, Pune Office No.101, Global Port Pashankar Auto Complex, Off Mumbai Vs. Bangalore Highway, Baner, Pune - 411045 Pan: Aatpr6854L (Appellant) (Respondent)

2) read with Section 6 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, after all the taxes are paid and withdrawn the appeal. (Necessary documents are attached - Annexure 15 & 16) 8) AY 2016-17 - Normal assessment completed and all taxes paid (Annexure 17) 9) AY 2017-18-Normal assessment completed and all taxes paid (Annexure

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

gain has arisen not out of transfer of capital asset. It is out of transfer of stock in trade. Here the assessee firm has come in to existence with the motive of trading of plots This is the business of the assessee. The profit earned is also taxed as business income. Hence, exemption claimed on profit arisen on account transfer

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

127 of the ITA, 1961.\n3. The Learned PCIT-Central Circle, Pune erred in law and on facts in\ncancelling registration u/s 12A/12AA for the period from 1/4/2019 to\n31/3/2021 without any cogent reasons.\n4. The registration u/s 12A r.w.s.12AB for the period from 1/4/2021\nonwards is cancelled without issuing show cause notice for the same\nand without any cogent

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

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

gains under the Act, in addition it being a recognised accounting principle. Therefore, the AO, in the process of calculation of correct book profit on account of reduction in capital applied the FIFO principle to the business loss which first existed / occurred in the books of account of the appellant. In the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the appellant

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

gains under the Act, in addition it being a recognised accounting principle. Therefore, the AO, in the process of calculation of correct book profit on account of reduction in capital applied the FIFO principle to the business loss which first existed / occurred in the books of account of the appellant. In the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the appellant

SUVARNA KIRAN CHAVAN,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1785/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

127 CTR 671 (Guj), the Assessing Officer held that the immovable property sold by the assessee is not an agricultural land and addition under the head ‘Income from Capital gain’ is warranted. Eventually, the AO made addition of Rs.50,95,685/- on account of income from capital gain. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who vide

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

capital gains amounting to INR 3,26,81,816 at an incorrect rate of 25% instead of 20% under section 112 of the Act and has consequently computed incorrect tax liability 7. The Lid AO has erred in computing the tax liability on income earned by the Appellant from business operations and other sources by applying at an incorrect base

FOSECO INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1(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 (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

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

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

127 Taxman 150 (Chd.)(Mag.) c. Hariyana State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. v. DCIT 90 ITD 551(Chd.) d. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT 65 ITD 1(Cal.) e. Micromatic Grinding Technologies Ltd. Formerly known as (Parishudh Saadhan Yantra) v. Addl. CIT 172 Taxation 35 (Del-Trib) f. CIT v. Giridharilal 258 ITR 331 11. The Ld. Counsel

SULOCHANA LAXMIKANT BHALE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1594/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

capital gain arising out of sale of property. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant society is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. I heard the rival submissions and perused the material

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), , PUNE vs. M/S RAVIRAJ VENTURES, PUNE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 To 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aagfr 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11, Dated 30.06.2022 Emanating From The Order Of The Acit, Dated 30.11.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit(A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts By Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Of Rs.1,59,55,025/- Levied By The Ao Towards Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income For Not Following Recognization Of Revenue As Per As-9, As Raviraj Ventures [R]

2 Raviraj Ventures [R] facts, please state whether corresponding revenue has been recognized. Ans: Sir, the Project “Crossroads” is being constructed by the firm Shri Raviraj Pashankar Developers and Project “Aurete” is being constructed by Raviraj Ventures. We do maintain the books of accounts of both the firms on day to day basis. On going through the tentative Profit

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGBAD vs. SHRI PANKAJ RATILAL MUGDIYA, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

gain appreciation rather than keeping the same idle. The assessee in the instant case has been earning the unaccounted income from assessment year 2015-16 and as and when the unaccounted income is earned, the same is invested in gold bars. Therefore, bringing the entire amount to tax in assessment year 2021-22 is not justified. Relying on various decisions