SHRIKANT ANANTRAO ZORI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

established principle of natural justice,\nreasonable opportunity & has thus completed a biased & unlawful\nassessment.\n4.\nThe Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming AO's non consideration\nand understanding the Financial Scheme Document and failed to\narrive at the correct interpretation and the underlying intentions of the\nCo. towards the appellant and the need for evolving the said scheme

ATUL SHASHIKANT GARBHE ,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

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

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

disallowed as claimed in ITR. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the IT Act are being initiated separately for under-reporting of income on account of claiming wrong relief under section 89 of the I.T.Act thereby reducing the tax liability which resulted issuance of refund. Total income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Income declared as per Return Rs.82

PARNA VASUDEVAIAH,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

established principle of natural justice, reasonable opportunity & has thus completed a biased & unlawful assessment. 4. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming AO's non consideration and understanding of the Financial Scheme Document and failed to arrive at the correct interpretation and the underlying intentions of the Co. towards the appellant and the need for evolving the said scheme

ASHOK RAGHUNATHRAO KULKARNI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

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

disallowance of tax relief made by the AO are confirmed. All grounds raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 11. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the Financial Scheme for the employees at Aurangabad of Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., copy

PARVEZ MUKHTAR KHAN,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

established legal position of appellant's entitlement to receive & employer's Obligation to pay, are fundamental to hold the said amounts as compensation. He has erred in treating the said Capital Receipt amounts as Profits in lieu of Salary u/s 17(3), ignoring Explanation 3 of Sec. 17(2) & Rule 3 sub-clause (10) Explanation ()(). 3 ITA.No.1111/PUN./2024

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

disallowance of\nbusiness loss written off on account of loss arising out of business\ninvestment from WOS in USA. It is well settled legal proposition that\nwhile deciding the question whether a receipt is a capital or income, it\nis not possible to lay down any single test as infallible or any single\ncriteria as decisive. The question must ultimately

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

disallowance of\nbusiness loss written off on account of loss arising out of business\ninvestment from WOS in USA. It is well settled legal proposition that\nwhile deciding the question whether a receipt is a capital or income, it\nis not possible to lay down any single test as infallible or any single\ncriteria as decisive. The question must ultimately

DNYANESHWAR SHINDE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed & added back to his income under the head ―Salary. 6.4 Further, it is worth noting that section 10(10B) specifically provides exemption for ―any compensation received by a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under any scheme of voluntary retirement or separation‖. However, as per clause 11(viii) of the scheme of Pfizer Healthcare India Private Limited

M/S GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D at ₹3,82,623, and assessed the income at ₹1,83,60,35,564. 5. Subsequently, ld. PCIT (Central) invoked provisions of section 263 of the Act regarding the claim of depreciation on intangible assets at ₹1,86,95,184 giving reference of the generation of goodwill at the time of amalgamation