M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

36,67,376/- claimed in the total Income while declaring the income from Matrix I.T Building under the head ‘Income from House Property'. 8. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction of maintenance expenses of Rs.50,39,563/- against the maintenance charges received from

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

v) under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and pointed out that if exclusive rights were sold, then it was not ‘royalty’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT Vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal), wherein it is held that where transferee retains

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

v) under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and pointed out that if exclusive rights were sold, then it was not ‘royalty’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT Vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal), wherein it is held that where transferee retains

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

v) under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and pointed out that if exclusive rights were sold, then it was not ‘royalty’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT Vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal), wherein it is held that where transferee retains

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

v) under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and pointed out that if exclusive rights were sold, then it was not ‘royalty’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in CIT Vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. (1991) 190 ITR 626 (Cal), wherein it is held that where transferee retains

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

v) This abnormal price rise is also highlighted by the overall percentage increase in the Sensex during the period when the shares saw 15 Sangeeta B. Mangrule A,Y. 2015-16 phenomenal price rise. Normally, the Sensex is a benchmark of the average price movement in any share. Most of the stocks which have good market capitalization and are majorly

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

v. CIT [1997] 92 Taxman 327/2261TR 211 (Ker.), where the assessee trust purchased' a refrigerator even before the trust buildings were completed and kept it at the disposal of the managing trustee and it was found that the assessee never Charged adequate rent or other compensation from the trustee, the Hon. High.Court held that the case would

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

v. CIT [1997] 92 Taxman 327/2261TR 211 (Ker.), where the assessee trust purchased' a refrigerator even before the trust buildings were completed and kept it at the disposal of the managing trustee and it was found that the assessee never Charged adequate rent or other compensation from the trustee, the Hon. High.Court held that the case would

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

v. CIT [1997] 92 Taxman 327/2261TR 211 (Ker.), where the assessee trust purchased' a refrigerator even before the trust buildings were completed and kept it at the disposal of the managing trustee and it was found that the assessee never Charged adequate rent or other compensation from the trustee, the Hon. High.Court held that the case would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

v. CIT [1997] 92 Taxman 327/2261TR 211 (Ker.), where the assessee trust purchased' a refrigerator even before the trust buildings were completed and kept it at the disposal of the managing trustee and it was found that the assessee never Charged adequate rent or other compensation from the trustee, the Hon. High.Court held that the case would

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

v. CIT [1997] 92 Taxman 327/2261TR 211 (Ker.), where the assessee trust purchased' a refrigerator even before the trust buildings were completed and kept it at the disposal of the managing trustee and it was found that the assessee never Charged adequate rent or other compensation from the trustee, the Hon. High.Court held that the case would

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

v. CIT [1997] 92 Taxman 327/2261TR 211 (Ker.), where the assessee trust purchased' a refrigerator even before the trust buildings were completed and kept it at the disposal of the managing trustee and it was found that the assessee never Charged adequate rent or other compensation from the trustee, the Hon. High.Court held that the case would

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

v Vireet Investment (P) Ltd (82 taxmann.com 415) wherein at para no 11.16 it is held that "Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be taken under these circumstances. We, accordingly, hold that those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investment which yielded exempt income during the year. " Copy of the decision is enclosed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

v. Sadashiuva Vishampayan\nreported in AIR 1961 SC 1623, has also confirmed the that, principle the rules of\nnatural justice require that a party should be given the opportunity of cross-examining\na witness.\n\n7.7 In addition, the following judgments advocate the above proposition:\n• Pr.CIT-3 vs. DKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., ITA 458 /2016 dated 27/07/2016\n(Delhi

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

v. Sadashiuva Vishampayan\nreported in AIR 1961 SC 1623, has also confirmed the that, principle the rules of\nnatural justice require that a party should be given the opportunity of cross-examining\na witness.\n7.7 In addition, the following judgments advocate the above proposition:\n• Pr.CIT-3 vs. DKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., ITA 458/2016 dated 27/07/2016\n(Delhi

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

36. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Abhishek Ashok Lohade vs. ITO vide ITA No.816/PUN/2018, order dated 24 22.11.2022, he submitted that here also the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of long term capital gains claimed

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

v. M/s Reliance Energy Ltd. 127 taxmann.com 69 [2021] (SC) wherein the Apex Court has held that the profit linked deduction is allowable to the extent of Gross Total Income of the taxpayer and need not be restricted to the extent of income under the head Profits and Gains from Business or Profession. The relevant extract of the decision relied