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\" and Section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer\nof capital assets, pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the\npurview of Section 45 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that\nthese provisions have no relevance to the facts of the present case.\n26. The Revenue, vide its written submissions, has relied upon certain\njudicial pronouncements

JAYA HIND INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

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

capital expenditure, Section 31 cannot be invoked. Similarly, Section 37(1) cannot also be invoked. 31. On the contention of Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Standing Counsel that the assessee originally capitalised the expenditure, but reversed the same later, we have to point out that there cannot be any estoppel in such cases. The question whether a particular expenditure would fall within

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. RENAISSANCE CULTIVATION LLP,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1416/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Renaissance Pune. Cultivation Llp, Pastakiya House, A/P Kamshet Maval, Pune- 410405 Pan : Aaofr7634K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal : Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Entire Facts Of The Case.

gains arises on sale of land cannot be taxed under the head ‘business income’. 6. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that whether a particular land is agricultural or not is essential a question of fact which should be decided with reference

RAM LAXMANRAO MITKARI,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

302 CTR 0458 (SC) has considered a similar issue and decided the same in favour of the assessee. It was then contended that since the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court was rendered prior to that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Singh and others (supra), the latter should be followed in preference to the former

SHRIJAY AGRO PVT. LTD. ,SATARA vs. ITO, WARD-2,SATARA, SATARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.41/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-2023 Shrijay Agro Private Limited, Vs Ito, Ward-2, Plot No. 6, Uttekar Nagar, Satara Sardar Bazar, Satara-415001 Maharashtra Pan-Aancs1143E Appellant Respondent

capital gains from sale of land at Rs. 4,81,43,302/- as against Rs. 10089526/- as computed by the appellant. 3. The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action under the provisions of Section

PRAKASH RAGHUNATH MANJARKAR,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE , , SATARA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

capital gains on 30-09-2013. The Land record officer, Satara dismissed stay request of Mr. Balkrishna Manjarkar for the development work to be commenced at S. No. 87/A/10+11+12 on 21-11-2013. There were change of FSI rules. The Land record officer, Satara dismissed appeal filed by Mr. Balkrishna Manjarkar and others based on merits

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

capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as deduction. 29. On the other hand, ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the expenditure which does not qualify for weighted deduction can be allowed as revenue expenditure either under the provisions of section 35(1)(iv) or u/s 37(1) of the Act. He submits that this issue was covered by the decision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

Gains. Subsequent, to the execution of “Share Purchase Agreement”, the assessee entered into Non-solicitation Agreement and Non-compete Agreement, both dated 05-08-2002 with Revathi. In lieu of accepting restrictive covenants, the assessee received consideration of Rs.7.5 crores and Rs.2.5 crores, respectively from Revathi. The aggregate consideration of Rs.10 crores received by assessee on execution of non-solicitation

ARUN TULSIDAS KHARAT,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Arun Tulshidas Kharat, The Deputy Shri Khandelwal Jain & V Commissioner Of Associates, Level 3, Riverside S Income Tax, Circle-7, Business Bay, Near Rto Pune. (Sangam Bridge), Wellesley Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Afhpk6814Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri A D Kulkarni, Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2023

Capital Gain(LTCG). Assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.2,67,85,735/- as Index Cost of Acquisition and Rs.37,18,767/- as Index Cost of Improvement. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer(AO) asked the assessee evidence for Cost of Improvement. Assessee filed bills, vouchers 37 in numbers. The AO observed that bill for Rs.4,47,339/- pertaining

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

gain a business foothold into the BPO segment of business was rejected by the Assessing Officer in the absence of assessee to establish from Cummins group companies. The Assessing Officer also noted that the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee had claimed in his statement that sum of ₹ 20,18,75,000/- was payment against intangible assets, which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

gain a business foothold into the BPO segment of business was rejected by the Assessing Officer in the absence of assessee to establish from Cummins group companies. The Assessing Officer also noted that the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee had claimed in his statement that sum of ₹ 20,18,75,000/- was payment against intangible assets, which

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

gain a business foothold into the BPO segment of business was rejected by the Assessing Officer in the absence of assessee to establish from Cummins group companies. The Assessing Officer also noted that the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee had claimed in his statement that sum of ₹ 20,18,75,000/- was payment against intangible assets, which

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

capital employed based, floor area base, headcount base, etc. He then pointed out that it was a fit case to resort to average allocation ratio i.e. average of assets plus expenses allocation keys and pointed out that the steps to be taken in this regard which are reproduced at page 83 of TPO’s order. The TPO thus, worked

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

capital employed based, floor area base, headcount base, etc. He then pointed out that it was a fit case to resort to average allocation ratio i.e. average of assets plus expenses allocation keys and pointed out that the steps to be taken in this regard which are reproduced at page 83 of TPO’s order. The TPO thus, worked

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

capital employed based, floor area base, headcount base, etc. He then pointed out that it was a fit case to resort to average allocation ratio i.e. average of assets plus expenses allocation keys and pointed out that the steps to be taken in this regard which are reproduced at page 83 of TPO’s order. The TPO thus, worked

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

capital employed based, floor area base, headcount base, etc. He then pointed out that it was a fit case to resort to average allocation ratio i.e. average of assets plus expenses allocation keys and pointed out that the steps to be taken in this regard which are reproduced at page 83 of TPO’s order. The TPO thus, worked

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

capital employed based, floor area base, headcount base, etc. He then pointed out that it was a fit case to resort to average allocation ratio i.e. average of assets plus expenses allocation keys and pointed out that the steps to be taken in this regard which are reproduced at page 83 of TPO’s order. The TPO thus, worked

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

capital employed based, floor area base, headcount base, etc. He then pointed out that it was a fit case to resort to average allocation ratio i.e. average of assets plus expenses allocation keys and pointed out that the steps to be taken in this regard which are reproduced at page 83 of TPO’s order. The TPO thus, worked