RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

195 Taxman 117 (Bom.) ii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) iii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat) iv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) v. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013, dated 06.02.2015 10. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has contended

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

195 Taxman 117 (Bom.) ii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) iii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat) iv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) v. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013, dated 06.02.2015 10. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has contended

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

195/- - Rs.52,86,898/-) and held the same as disallowable u/s. 94(7) of the Act. We note that the AO held the capital gain of Rs.26,28,847/- to be chargeable to tax without there being any revised return of income but only finding the same during the course of assessment proceedings. Likewise, the AO also held an amount

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

195/- - Rs.52,86,898/-) and held the same as disallowable u/s. 94(7) of the Act. We note that the AO held the capital gain of Rs.26,28,847/- to be chargeable to tax without there being any revised return of income but only finding the same during the course of assessment proceedings. Likewise, the AO also held an amount

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

195 Тахтап 117 (Вот.)\nii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312\n(SC)\niii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20\n(Gujarat)\niv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay)\nv. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013,\ndated 06.02.2015\n10. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

195 Тахтап 117 (Вот.)\n11\nITA Nos.1121 to 1126/PUN/2024\nRajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha\nii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312\n(SC)\niii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20\n(Gujarat)\niv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay)\nv. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013,\ndated

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

195 Тахтап 117 (Вот.)\nii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312\n(SC)\niii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20\n(Gujarat)\niv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay)\nv. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013,\ndated 06.02.2015\n10. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative

D vs. DISHTI INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

195 ITR 28 (Bom.) 3. Baroda Cement and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT 158 ITR 636 (Guj.) 4. Dhruv N. Shah 88 ITD 118 (Mumb Trib.) 12. We heard both the sides, perused the orders of the Revenue authorities on the issue of taxability of capital gain u/s.2(47) of the Act. We have also perused the decisions relied

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

capital gains. Once this principle was accepted and consistently applied and followed, the Revenue was bound by it. Unless of course it wanted to change the practice without any change in law or change in facts therein, the basis for the change in practice should have been mentioned either in the assessment order or atleast pointed out to the Tribunal