DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

gain would not be speculative under section 43(5).‖ In the above referred decision, the question No.3 which has been referred to the Hon’ble Third Member u/s 255(4) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for consideration was as under – ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., ―Whether on the facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

gain would not be speculative under section 43(5).‖ In the above referred decision, the question No.3 which has been referred to the Hon’ble Third Member u/s 255(4) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for consideration was as under – ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., ―Whether on the facts

RAMESH G PORWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

4. 1st ground is with respect to treating the income as business income as against it treatment by assessee as short term capital gains. 4.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee had disclosed short term capital gains of Rs.38,23,839/- which were split into 2 categories namely, short term capital loss (--Rs.10918/-), the transactions

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ MURLIDHAR GIRDHARILAL, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

4 Hectors situated at Majalgaon is jointly owned by the three assessees having 1/3rd share each. The aforesaid land was sold by the assessees in the period relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 for a total consideration of Rs.3.68 crores. The assessees thereafter claimed deduction u/s. 54B in respect of Long Term Capital Gains arising on the sale

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ JUGALKISHOR GIRDHARILAL,, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

4 Hectors situated at Majalgaon is jointly owned by the three assessees having 1/3rd share each. The aforesaid land was sold by the assessees in the period relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 for a total consideration of Rs.3.68 crores. The assessees thereafter claimed deduction u/s. 54B in respect of Long Term Capital Gains arising on the sale

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ SATYANARAYAN GIRDHARILAL,, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

4 Hectors situated at Majalgaon is jointly owned by the three assessees having 1/3rd share each. The aforesaid land was sold by the assessees in the period relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 for a total consideration of Rs.3.68 crores. The assessees thereafter claimed deduction u/s. 54B in respect of Long Term Capital Gains arising on the sale

MUZAFFER MAHMOOD KHAN,,AURANGABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

gain with respect to sale consideration and substantial increase in capital in a year. We note that the notice dated 10-08-2016 issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act is placed at page No. 256 of the paper book and the questionnaire is at page 255 of the paper book. On perusal of the same, it shows that

PRIDE PURPLE BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.699/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pride Purple Builders Private The Deputy Limited, V Commissioner Income Pride House, 5Th Floor, S Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. S.No.108/7, Shivajinagar, Near Pune University Circle, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aadcp 4286 H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M G Jasnani, Irs - Dr Date Of Hearing 03/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Dated 18.08.2022For A.Y.2015-16 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Pride Purple Builders Private Limited [A]

gains of business or profession carried out by the assessee 18 at any time during the previous year [Clause (i) of Section 28 of the IT Act]. Section 56 of the IT Act is in the nature of a residuary clause, i.e., if the income of every kind which is not to be excluded from total income under

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 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

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

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground, Ld. CPC Bengaluru has erred in denying the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act and thereby further erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs.5,91,66,438/- as against the returned income

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

255 (Raj.) and has also taken note of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Court has laid down the ratio that where the basis of the initiation of proceedings u/s.148 in case of the assessee was material seized relating to or belonging to 31 ITA.No

BHARAT DEWAKINANDAN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13, PUNE., PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

gains and income from other sources. Under scrutiny, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act issued. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed details before the AO which is evident from para 2 of the assessment order. According to the AO, the assessee has shown gross annual value regarding office No. 801 at “Zero

POKHARNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

4. Exemption Under Section 10(23C)(illad) Correctly Claimed\n3\n4. 1. The assessce qualifies as an educational trust with receipts under\nRs 1 crore. Such exemption under Section 10(23) is automatic and does\nnot require registration under Section 12A, which is a separate\nrequirement. (Refer Page No. 3, 27 and 38 of Paper Book

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. MANTRI HOUSING & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section (1) of Sec.142 of the Act. We find that Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Amjad Ali Nazar Ali Vs. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 419 has observed that the use of the word “discovers” in Sec.139(5) cannotes discovery of some omission or wrong statement in the return, of which the assessee was not aware

ACIT, CIR.-1(2),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section (1) of Sec.142 of the Act. We find that Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Amjad Ali Nazar Ali Vs. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 419 has observed that the use of the word “discovers” in Sec.139(5) cannotes discovery of some omission or wrong statement in the return, of which the assessee was not aware

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section (1) of Sec.142 of the Act. We find that Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Amjad Ali Nazar Ali Vs. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 419 has observed that the use of the word “discovers” in Sec.139(5) cannotes discovery of some omission or wrong statement in the return, of which the assessee was not aware

M/S. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. ITO, WD.-3(3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section (1) of Sec.142 of the Act. We find that Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Amjad Ali Nazar Ali Vs. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 419 has observed that the use of the word “discovers” in Sec.139(5) cannotes discovery of some omission or wrong statement in the return, of which the assessee was not aware