DCIT, CIRCLE-8 vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,, PUNE

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

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

Section 15A, Chikhali Village, Pimpri, Pune – 411 018 PAN : AABCM1789L …. Cross Objector Vs. DCIT, Circle-8, Pune …. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Achuthan Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 08.08.2018 आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : There are 3 appeals under consideration

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

Section 15A, Chikhali Village, Pimpri, Pune – 411 018 PAN : AABCM1789L …. Cross Objector Vs. DCIT, Circle-8, Pune …. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Achuthan Revenue by : Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 08.08.2018 आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : There are 3 appeals under consideration

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL and made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made the consequential addition on account of commission paid for acquiring the accommodation entries of Rs.23,04,725/- u/s 69C being

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL and made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made the consequential addition on account of commission paid for acquiring the accommodation entries of Rs.23,04,725/- u/s 69C being

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL and made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made the consequential addition on account of commission paid for acquiring the accommodation entries of Rs.23,04,725/- u/s 69C being

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL and made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made the consequential addition on account of commission paid for acquiring the accommodation entries of Rs.23,04,725/- u/s 69C being

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL and made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made the consequential addition on account of commission paid for acquiring the accommodation entries of Rs.23,04,725/- u/s 69C being

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) on gains from sale of shares of the penny stock company namely, PFLIL and made addition of Rs.7,68,24,174/- to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made the consequential addition on account of commission paid for acquiring the accommodation entries of Rs.23,04,725/- u/s 69C being