INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(2),, PUNE vs. SUBHASH KRISHNARAO SAPTARSHI,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

capital gain:- i) V.S.M.R. Jagadish Chandran V. CIT (93 Taxmann 389-SC). ii) CIT V. Attili N. Rao (119 Taxmann 1030 - SC). iii) Smt S. Valliammai V. CIT (6 Taxmann 240 - Madras). iv) Ashok Soi V. CIT (144 Taxmann 383 Delhi). v) Smt Sita Nanda V. CIT (119 Taxmann 227 - Delhi). vi) Sri Kanniah Photo Studio (235 Taxmann 58 - Madras

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. KAPURBA AND COMPANY, BARSHI, SOLAPUR

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

206 days. After hearing both the parties, we condone the said delay. 5. The Revenue raised six grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in holding non-applicability of section 2(47) of the Act. 6. We note that the assessee is a firm, engaged

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

206, wherein section 14 of the Copy Right Act has been referred to, which explains the meaning of copyright and vide paras 20 and 21, the issue has been explained and decided in favour of assessee and it has been held that the issue has to be decided in the light of definition of ‘royalty’, as contained in DTAA read

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

206, wherein section 14 of the Copy Right Act has been referred to, which explains the meaning of copyright and vide paras 20 and 21, the issue has been explained and decided in favour of assessee and it has been held that the issue has to be decided in the light of definition of ‘royalty’, as contained in DTAA read

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

206, wherein section 14 of the Copy Right Act has been referred to, which explains the meaning of copyright and vide paras 20 and 21, the issue has been explained and decided in favour of assessee and it has been held that the issue has to be decided in the light of definition of ‘royalty’, as contained in DTAA read

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

206, wherein section 14 of the Copy Right Act has been referred to, which explains the meaning of copyright and vide paras 20 and 21, the issue has been explained and decided in favour of assessee and it has been held that the issue has to be decided in the light of definition of ‘royalty’, as contained in DTAA read

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

206 (Bom.).\n7. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and also perused the\nrecord. As per the facts stated here-in-above, there was search and seizure action\nagainst one Shri Sohanraj Mehta, C&F of RMD Gutka Group. During the course of\nsearch and seizure action some documents were seized from which it was\nrevealed that

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

206 of the IT Act, 1961 on 23.10.2015 3 Statement of Shri. Shashikant 208 to 211 Q. No. 9 to Shivchand Parakh, partner of 12/209 to 211 assessee, recorded in response to summons issued u/s. 131 of the IT Act, 1961 on 20.10.2015 Originally, the plots of Makhmalabad were agreed to be sold to M/s Dhananjay Marketing Private

HUECO ELECTRONICS (I) PVT.LTD,(NOW KNOWN AS HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS PUNE (I) PVT.LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.02/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

206 ITR 291 (Bom) The appellant has relied upon decision of Hon. Pune Tribunal in the case of Cooper Corporation (P) Ltd. (2006) 69 taxmann.com 244. In that case facts were slightly on different footing as initially loans were taken in Indian Rupees from Banks for acquisition of assets and expansion of Project. Subsequently, the loans were converted into Foreign

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

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

gains of\nbusiness which is not incidental to the attainment of its objectives\nor separate books of account are not maintained by such trust or\ninstitution in respect of the business which is incidental to the\nattainment of its objectives; or\n(c) the trust or institution has applied any part of its income from\nthe property held under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

206 ITR 477 (Bom.) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, it was held as follows :- “There was no dispute about the fact that the visit of the managing director was for the purpose of business. There was also no dispute that the business of the assessee was already going on and it was in connection

SANJAY MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4)) "substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived". Such being the case, this court

SANJAY MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4)) "substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived". Such being the case, this court

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4)) "substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived". Such being the case, this court

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4)) "substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived". Such being the case, this court

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4)) "substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived". Such being the case, this court

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Gains of Business or Profession" is to be computed as per provisions of section 28 of the Act (i.e. the charging section). It has been principally held in numerous judicial precedents that expenditure / losses incurred in connection with business operations are deductible in deriving profits / income of that business even in cases where the same may not be explicitly provided

PADMAVATI WIND ENERGY PVT.LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SATARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for assessment years

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 897 To 899/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2008-09

206 PAN : AAFCS1437B …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Satara ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Prayag Jha Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Gawli सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 21.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 07.09.2018 आदेश / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM These three appeals by the assessee for assessment years

PADMAVATI WIND ENERGY PVT.LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SATARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for assessment years

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 897 To 899/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2008-09

206 PAN : AAFCS1437B …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Satara ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Prayag Jha Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Gawli सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 21.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 07.09.2018 आदेश / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM These three appeals by the assessee for assessment years