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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

211 (Bombay), it is observed and decision delivered by Hon'ble Judges- Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Income escaping assessment - Non-disclosure of primary facts - Change of M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. opinion - Assessment year 2006-07-Whether, even in absence of assessee's, failure to disclose material facts, where there is complete failure on part

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

211 (Bombay), it is observed and decision delivered by Hon'ble Judges- Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Income escaping assessment - Non-disclosure of primary facts - Change of M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. opinion - Assessment year 2006-07-Whether, even in absence of assessee's, failure to disclose material facts, where there is complete failure on part

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

211 (Bombay), it is observed and decision delivered by Hon'ble Judges- Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Income escaping assessment - Non-disclosure of primary facts - Change of M/s. Accord Mediplus Pvt. Ltd. opinion - Assessment year 2006-07-Whether, even in absence of assessee's, failure to disclose material facts, where there is complete failure on part

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURNAGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

depreciation of assets used by Goodyear, any fee required to obtain the accountants’ certificate referred to in section 8.2” Clause 3 of the Agreement deals with allocation of costs. Sub-clause (a) states that the assessee “will only receive, and be obligated to pay for, those services that pertain to its business and are provided by Goodyear. Clause

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

depreciation of assets used by Goodyear, any fee required to obtain the accountants’ certificate referred to in section 8.2” Clause 3 of the Agreement deals with allocation of costs. Sub-clause (a) states that the assessee “will only receive, and be obligated to pay for, those services that pertain to its business and are provided by Goodyear. Clause

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

211 (Mum). In the said case, the bad-debts write-off was claimed by using the phraseology as "provision for doubtful debts" and 'saucing the same from debtors accounts. Relevant head-note of the said decision is reproduced as under. II Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Bad debts - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether even when

ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

2) and 142(1) were issued along with questionnaire. After considering reply of the assessee, the to the returned income :- (a) Addition of Rs.4,40,88,228/- on account of disallowance of leasehold improvement expenses of Rs.4,64,08,661/-. (b) The assessee has not set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of past years of Rs.36,68,211/- before computing current

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

2) and 142(1) were issued along with questionnaire. After considering reply of the assessee, the to the returned income :- (a) Addition of Rs.4,40,88,228/- on account of disallowance of leasehold improvement expenses of Rs.4,64,08,661/-. (b) The assessee has not set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of past years of Rs.36,68,211/- before computing current

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

211 assessee, recorded in response to summons issued u/s. 131 of the IT Act, 1961 on 20.10.2015 Originally, the plots of Makhmalabad were agreed to be sold to M/s Dhananjay Marketing Private Ltd. of Thakkar Group of Nashik vide agreement dt. 25th April 2013. Necessary documents were also executed (Pg no. 19 to 40 of paperbook). On the request

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

2) was issued much ahead of the said grant of approval for\nscheme of amalgamation on 02.09.2014 itself. Therefore, the said decision is not\napplicable to the facts of the present case. He further held that even if it were to be\nassumed that order needs to be passed in the hands of the amalgamated company\nonly

SHRI BHOGAWATI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1, TARABAI PARK

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.371/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd., Shahunagar(Parite) , Tal. Karveer Dist Kolhapur – 416 211 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaaas3731R

211 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant PAN : AAAAS3731R बनधम / V/s. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent ACIT, Cir-1, Kolhapur Assessee by : Shri None Revenue by : Shri Sunil Kumar सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 20.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 29.08.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 is directed against the CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not in appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same. 9. So far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/- is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee by observing as under

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPN. PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not in appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same. 9. So far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/- is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee by observing as under

RIETER INDIA PVT.LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rieter India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Gat No.768/2, Circle-5, Shindewadi-Bhor Road, Pune Village Wing, Taluka Khandala, District Satara – 412 801 Pan : Aaacr3556P Appellant Respondent

211 TTJ 0429 (Pune) considered a situation in which the assessee in the revised return made a suo motu disallowance of depreciation. The revised return was accepted by the AO. However, at the time of computation of ALP, the TPO considered them as operating costs. The Pune Bench held that when the AO accepted the revised return by taking

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

Depreciation expenses originally absorbed by the appellant in its Segmental P&L as per TP Report. Ground 6: Non-acceptance/exclusion of overseas comparable companies On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AU based on the directions of Ld. DRP has erred in notaccepting/excluding the overseas comparable companies operating in the regions where

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

211 d. CIT vs Smt. Nirmal Anand 245 ITR 836 e. Jay Commercial Ltd vs CIT 66 TTJ 731 f. Hycron India vs ACIT 82 TTJ 450 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi

SHRI VITTHAL SAHAKARI SAKHAR K LTD..,SOLAPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.580/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Vitthal Vs Dcit, Sahakarisakharkarakhana Circle-1, Solapur. Limited, At Gursale Post Gursale, Tal Pandarpur District, Solapur – 413304. Pan: Aaaas3892H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hanmant D Dhavle – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 17.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Shri Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Ltd., [A]

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Shri Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Ltd., [A] “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law of the learned NFAC – Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi, has erred in disallowing