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

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 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 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

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

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

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

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

SEHGAL AUTORIDERS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.162/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sehgal Autoriders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle- 10, D-Ii, 64/6, Midc Telco Road, Pune. Chinchwad, Pune- 411019. Pan : Aafcs2240A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rishi V. Lodha Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing 25.01.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 25.01.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 6, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 08.11.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Hon. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals), Pune-6 Erred In Disallowing The Depreciation Claimed For The Cars Used By The Directors For Official Work Of The Company But Ownership Documents In The Name Of Individual Director. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals), Pune-6 Erred In Disallowing The Interest Paid On The Purchase Of Cars.

201 ITR 995 (Bom.-HC). 10. In the light of above legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is entitled to the depreciation under the provisions of section 32 of the Act inspite of the fact that the vehicle is registered in the name of the director of the appellant company. Therefore, we direct the Assessing

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

201 PAN: AAACB 9652 L :Appellant Vs. The Asstt. CIT Cir. 12, Pune Respondent Appellant by : Shri Madhur Agarwal (through virtual) Respondent by : Shri Kalika Singh (through virtual) Date of Hearing : 07-09-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13-09-2022 ORDER PER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order

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