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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

MAHESH GOKULDAS FULWANI,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mahesh Gokuldas Fulwani Ito, Ward 1(1), Mahesh Traders C O Girls Fashion, Aurangabad Vs. 2/7/63, Tilak Path, Paithan Gate, Aurangabad- 431001 Pan: Aajpf4456C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Girish Ladda Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-07-2025 O R D E R

2. I, therefore, propose to assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form for Assessment Year. 3. This notice is being

M/S KARIA BUILDERS ,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Karia Builders Ito, Ward 14(3), Pune 402, Konark Indrayu, Kondhwa, Vs. Pune – 411048 Pan: Aadfk5220B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 O R D E R

2. I, therefore, propose to assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form for Assessment Year. 3. This notice is being

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

151, reopening of assessment was justified -Held, yes [Paras 2 and 3] In the case Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v Additional Commissioner of Income-tax* DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. WRIT PETITION NO. 502 OF 2012 JANUARY 10/11, 2013, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, [2013] 30 taxmann.com 211 (Bombay), it is observed and decision delivered

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

151, reopening of assessment was justified -Held, yes [Paras 2 and 3] In the case Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v Additional Commissioner of Income-tax* DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. WRIT PETITION NO. 502 OF 2012 JANUARY 10/11, 2013, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, [2013] 30 taxmann.com 211 (Bombay), it is observed and decision delivered

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

151, reopening of assessment was justified -Held, yes [Paras 2 and 3] In the case Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v Additional Commissioner of Income-tax* DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. WRIT PETITION NO. 502 OF 2012 JANUARY 10/11, 2013, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, [2013] 30 taxmann.com 211 (Bombay), it is observed and decision delivered

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

151, reopening of assessment was justified -Held, yes [Paras 2 and 3] In the case Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v Additional Commissioner of Income-tax* DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. WRIT PETITION NO. 502 OF 2012 JANUARY 10/11, 2013, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, [2013] 30 taxmann.com 211 (Bombay), it is observed and decision delivered

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

151, reopening of assessment was justified -Held, yes [Paras 2 and 3] In the case Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v Additional Commissioner of Income-tax* DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. WRIT PETITION NO. 502 OF 2012 JANUARY 10/11, 2013, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, [2013] 30 taxmann.com 211 (Bombay), it is observed and decision delivered

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

2. CIT Vs. M/s.Vegetables Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 3. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Ltd. Vs. CBDT 159 ITR 162 (Bom.) Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that once the assessee incurs any cost towards acquisition of know-how, the deduction for the same was always intended to be allowed to the assessee. In this regard, he referred to amendment

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

2. CIT Vs. M/s.Vegetables Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 3. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Ltd. Vs. CBDT 159 ITR 162 (Bom.) Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that once the assessee incurs any cost towards acquisition of know-how, the deduction for the same was always intended to be allowed to the assessee. In this regard, he referred to amendment

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

151] (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures in the case of CIT (Central) Kolkata vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in [87 ITR 349], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims

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

2. CIT Vs. M/s.Vegetables Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 3. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Ltd. Vs. CBDT 159 ITR 162 (Bom.) Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that once the assessee incurs any cost towards acquisition of know-how, the deduction for the same was always intended to be allowed to the assessee. In this regard, he referred to amendment

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

2. Denial of deduction under section 10A of the Act to Unit I, Bangalore. 2.1. The Learned AO has erred in not considering the facts and submission made by the Appellant, and not allowing claim for deduction under section 10A of the Act to Unit I (based in Bangalore) which was inadvertently missed out by the Appellant in its return