ACIT,CIR.-1,, AURANGABAD vs. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2011 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad-431 201 Pan :Aaecs3749M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

201 PAN :AAECS3749M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Ms. Meenal Sabnis Revenue by : Shri Avadhesh Kumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 01.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 02.07.2019 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal (ITA No.714/PUN/2011) preferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST,, PUNE

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

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

1)(a) of the Income-tax Act could be ascertained. A similar view was taken by the Gujarat High Court in C1T vs. Ganga Charity Trust Fund, (1986) 162 ITR 612. Under the circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn on the basis of the factual data culled out by the AO in the assessment order. (vi) Further, the total

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

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

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

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

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

GAJENDRA D PAWAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

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

201 of the paper book, Vol.-II. A perusal of the same shows that on the right margin of the document two amounts have been mentioned viz. Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.6 lakhs. The Assessing Officer has ignored the amount of Rs.4 lakhs and has made addition of Rs.6 lakhs as A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 „on money‟. Except for those

GAJENDRA D PAWAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is partly allowed

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

201 of the paper book, Vol.-II. A perusal of the same shows that on the right margin of the document two amounts have been mentioned viz. Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.6 lakhs. The Assessing Officer has ignored the amount of Rs.4 lakhs and has made addition of Rs.6 lakhs as A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 „on money‟. Except for those

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. SHRI. ULHAS MALLIKARJUN PATIL,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

1,25,67,506/- as on 01.04.2012. The AO computed short term capital gain of Rs. 2,11,38,477/-. ITA No.1751/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 (A) Shri Ulhas M. Patil 5.4 During appellate proceedings the appellant submitted that the appellant has inadvertently declared the rent received as income from business instead of income from house property. The appellant submitted

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

201 to 279 of the paper book-I, he submitted that the bank statements of the parties were submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. Referring to pages 280 to 371 of the paper book-I, he drew the attention of the Bench to the confirmations from the loan creditors and submitted that the same were given during the course

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

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