VIGHNAHAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

VIGHNAHAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (JUDICIAL (HQ),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the AO in such fresh determination of the issue. 7. It is noted that in some of the appeals, the assessees have raised an alternate ground for allowing deduction

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

201(1) of the Act. The first appeal failed but the Tribunal granted relief by holding that payment was not in the nature of royalty for the reason that it did not partake of the character of royalty in terms of the DTAA. When the matter came up before the Hon’ble High Court, it held that a resident payer

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

201 ITR 325 was considering Section 80J(6A). The Gujarat High Court took the view put by this court in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81. It was held that the provision about furnishing of the auditor's report along with the return has to be treated as procedural provision and, therefore, directory in nature. 15. The provisions

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

201 ITR 325 was considering Section 80J(6A). The Gujarat High Court took the view put by this court in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81. It was held that the provision about furnishing of the auditor's report along with the return has to be treated as procedural provision and, therefore, directory in nature. 15. The provisions

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

201 ITR 325 was considering Section 80J(6A). The Gujarat High Court took the view put by this court in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81. It was held that the provision about furnishing of the auditor's report along with the return has to be treated as procedural provision and, therefore, directory in nature. 15. The provisions

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

201 ITR 325 was considering Section 80J(6A). The Gujarat High Court took the view put by this court in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81. It was held that the provision about furnishing of the auditor's report along with the return has to be treated as procedural provision and, therefore, directory in nature. 15. The provisions

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

201 ITR 325 was considering Section 80J(6A). The Gujarat High Court took the view put by this court in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81. It was held that the provision about furnishing of the auditor's report along with the return has to be treated as procedural provision and, therefore, directory in nature. 15. The provisions

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

201 ITR 325 was considering Section 80J(6A). The Gujarat High Court took the view put by this court in CIT v. Jaideep Industries [1989] 180 ITR 81. It was held that the provision about furnishing of the auditor's report along with the return has to be treated as procedural provision and, therefore, directory in nature. 15. The provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

depreciation of Rs.27,20,59,980/- not made by the assessee in its original return as well as revised return of income ?‖ 37. Ground of appeal no.1 challenges the correctness of decision of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the performance guarantee is not an international transaction. The relevant findings

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

depreciation of Rs.27,20,59,980/- not made by the assessee in its original return as well as revised return of income ?‖ 37. Ground of appeal no.1 challenges the correctness of decision of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the performance guarantee is not an international transaction. The relevant findings

RIETER INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1551/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation or brought forward losses as required by clause (iii) of Explanation (1) to sub- section (2) of section 115JB of the Act. The assessee had not made the aforesaid claim in its revised return of income. The CIT(A) applying the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geotze India

SAHAKAR SHIROMANI VASANTRAO KALE SSK LTD,,BHALAWANI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (5),, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sahakar Shiromani Vasantrao Vs. Ito, Ward Kale Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana 2(5), Solapur Ltd., At & Post Bhalawani, Tal- Pandharpur, Dist-Solapur-413304 Pan: Aaaac0507D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act‟. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in its appeal:- 2 1. Hon’ble CIT(Appeals)-7, Solapur has erred in confirming the disallowance of : Rs.42,48,02,714/- a. Excess Cane Price Rs. 91,32,523/- b. Sale

MOTI UDHARAM PANJABI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

201-12. 2. The first two grounds are directed against reallocating amount of depreciation on all assets which amount was subsequently enhanced by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee earned income from projects titled as Head Office (HO), Swiss County and Silver Mist. The income from Swiss County and Silver

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

Section\n234C of the Act.\n22. The Appellant prays that the charging of interest under\nSections 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act, is erroneous, unwarranted\nand be deleted.\nThe Appellant prays that the additions made by the Ld. TPO/Ld.\nAO under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP be deleted and\nconsequential relief be granted.\nThe Appellant craves leave

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

201. 4. Being aggrieved with the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 5. Before us, the ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the Gripper for robotic along with interface box is a part of main machines i.e. high pressure die casting machines and it cannot function independently and therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, NASHIK vs. M/S. JAORA NAYAGAON TOLL ROAD COMPANY PVT. LTD, INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.142/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Jaora Nayagaon Toll Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs Road Company Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. . 201, Princess Centre, 6/3, New Palasia, Indore, Madhya Pradesh – 452001. Pan: Aabcj 8790 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri B Koteswra Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune- 12’S Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1031081099(1) Dated 28.02.2021, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

201, Princess Centre, 6/3, New Palasia, Indore, Madhya Pradesh – 452001. PAN: AABCJ 8790 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Shri B Koteswra Rao – DR Date of hearing 08/09/2022 Date of pronouncement 27/09/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune

MAHANAGAR REALTY,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

201/- and claimed cost proportionate to the revenue recognized. The assessee has submitted audited financial statement for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 during the course of assessment proceedings. The same are appearing on page no 92 to 193 of the 5 paper book. The details are already explained in para 2.1 above. During the year under consideration