SHARFUDDIN YUNUS KAZI ,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RAIGAD

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.605/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10 Sharfuddin Yunus Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, House No.25, At Vadghar, V Ward-1, Raigad. Panvel, Raigad – 410208. S Pan: Asipk 7994 Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-2 [Ld.Cit(A)], Thane Dated 07.09.2020 For A.Y.2009-10 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 28.03.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Lower Authorities Erred In Treating The Transaction Of Sale Of Land At Village Pangaon, Tal: Panvel, Dist. Raigad, As Completed Sharfuddin Yunus Kazi [A]

Capital Gain Tax on total consideration mentioned in the agreement of Rs.20 crores after reducing index cost of acquisition. AO also denied assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54F stating that no details were filed. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the findings of the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Submission

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

capital gains. This claim of excess expense in this regard, in my opinion, when surrendered by the appellant by realizing such wrong claim, initially made due to inadvertence, cannot be held as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, as has been held by the AO while levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. I further find that

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

gains nor depreciation on goodwill. The AO had\ncited various Judicial pronouncements in support of the stand taken by him\nin the assessment order.\n7.2.2 The appellant company in its submission during appellate proceeding\nhas submitted that as per Hon'ble Bombay High Court order dated 16 April\n2016 YAPL and ADEPL were amalgamated into the appellant company with\neffect

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

capital gain is ₹ 1,64,17,638/- and the same is required to be offered to tax in the year when consideration is received. Ld.AO further observed that out of 5 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) LTCG of ₹1,64,17,638, assessee has declared LTCG

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

capital gain is ₹ 1,64,17,638/- and the same is required to be offered to tax in the year when consideration is received. Ld.AO further observed that out of 5 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) LTCG of ₹1,64,17,638, assessee has declared LTCG

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

capital gain is ₹ 1,64,17,638/- and the same is required to be offered to tax in the year when consideration is received. Ld.AO further observed that out of 5 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) LTCG of ₹1,64,17,638, assessee has declared LTCG

MRS. PURNIMA PATNI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), JAIPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.234 & 235/Jpr/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 Mrs. Purnima Patni, The Ito, Ward-3(4), Jaipur. Plot No.604A, Akashganga Vs Society, Rahetani, Pimple . Soudagar, Pune – 411017. Pan: Adupp 9192 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: 1. These Assessee’S Twin Appeals For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arise Against The Cit(A)-1, Jaipur’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 09.11.2017, Passed In Case No.S:92/2013-14 & 189/2013-14 Involving Proceedings Under Section 144 & 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

section 144 assessment dated 26.12.2011 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order reading as follows: “(iv) The relevant extract of rejoinder of the AR to the remand report of the AO is reproduced as under: The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.23,24,000 in her bank account in cash as detailed below

MRS. PURNIMA PATNI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), JAIPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.234 & 235/Jpr/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 Mrs. Purnima Patni, The Ito, Ward-3(4), Jaipur. Plot No.604A, Akashganga Vs Society, Rahetani, Pimple . Soudagar, Pune – 411017. Pan: Adupp 9192 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: 1. These Assessee’S Twin Appeals For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arise Against The Cit(A)-1, Jaipur’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 09.11.2017, Passed In Case No.S:92/2013-14 & 189/2013-14 Involving Proceedings Under Section 144 & 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

section 144 assessment dated 26.12.2011 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order reading as follows: “(iv) The relevant extract of rejoinder of the AR to the remand report of the AO is reproduced as under: The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.23,24,000 in her bank account in cash as detailed below

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

gain. Hence, the expenditure incurred cannot be treated asRevenue expenditure since there is a transfer of business and the amounts paid are capital in nature. The saidorder was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. The Appellate Tribunal after re-examining the matter indetail, relying upon the various judgments of the various High Courts as well as the Supreme Court held

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

capitation fees are merely based on the statement of employees which have been subsequently retracted and the Pendrive and loose document found at the residential premises of employee has also been retracted at the subsequent stage and that the Managing Trustee of the assessee trust has denied to be indulged into any of such alleged transaction in the statement given

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE vs. M/S SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (TRUST), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

158(BB) of the Income-tax Act read with Section 3 of the Evidence Act and Section 131 of the Income Tax Act. Based on the above finding, it was also held that such evidence would be admissible for the purpose of block assessments too. The explanation to Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act was also noticed

RANGNATHAPPA GOVINDAPPA ZHARKHANDE,,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1209/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rangnathappa Govindappa Vs. Ito, Ward- 3, Jalna. Zharkhande, Nal Galli, Kaderabad, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Aashr4543M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarani Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Cit(A)-1, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 27.02.2017 Passed In Case No. Abd/Cit(A)-1/317/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Coming To The Assessee’S First & Foremost Legal Argument That Both The Learned Lower Authorities Have Erred In Law & On Facts In Taking Recourse To Section 148/147 Proceedings, We Find No Merit Therein Since It Has Come On Record That This Taxpayer Had Indeed

section 148/147 proceedings, we find no merit therein since it has come on record that this taxpayer had indeed 2 sold its capital/business asset in the relevant previous year and did not file any return. 3. Next comes the assessee’s latter substantive grievance on merits challenging the learned lower authorities’ action adding the entire sale consideration of Rs.74

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

capitation fees are merely based on the statement of\nemployees which have been subsequently retracted and the Pendrive\nand loose document found at the residential premises of employee has\nalso been retracted at the subsequent stage and that the Managing\nTrustee of the assessee trust has denied to be indulged into any of such\nalleged transaction in the statement given

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

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

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

Capital Gains,40 ["India- Ireland DTAA"]. Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

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

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

Capital Gains,40 ["India- Ireland DTAA"]. Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income

TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

Capital Gains,40 ["IndiaIreland DTAA"]. Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone 7 Tibco Software B.V. A.Y. 2014-15 be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section

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

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

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

158\nТахтап 199 and Allahabad High Court in the case of Oxford Academy for\nCareer Development v. Chief CIT [20091.315 ITR 382\n29. All the three High Courts after examining the issue, in the light of the\nobject of Section 12A of the Act and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act\nheld that the order of the CIT passed

MADHAV PANDHARINATH KANDE,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Madhav Pandharinath The Income Tax Officer Kande Ward -3 Vs. A/P Dhanora, Tal. Ahmedpur Latur Latur 413515 Pan – Cbwpp1670A Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Bharat Shah Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2013-14 Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A) 2, Aurangabad Dated 04.07.2017 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit (A)-2/Set Aside/Pn/66/2011-12.755 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The Act.

Capital gains” of the previous year in which the final order of such court, Tribunal or other authority is made; to state that since the interest which was received by the assessee was in pursuance of an interim order of the Honourable High Court, the said interest amount cannot be taxable till the Honourable High Court delivers its final judgement