JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

254(2) of the Act. Once both the decisions on which the CIT(A) had relied on to dismiss the plea of assessee stands recalled, then we need to re-look at the issue. 60. Now, we shall deal with the first aspect of the issue raised as to whether the payment made by assessee for purchase of software

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

254(2) of the Act. Once both the decisions on which the CIT(A) had relied on to dismiss the plea of assessee stands recalled, then we need to re-look at the issue. 60. Now, we shall deal with the first aspect of the issue raised as to whether the payment made by assessee for purchase of software

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

254(2) of the Act. Once both the decisions on which the CIT(A) had relied on to dismiss the plea of assessee stands recalled, then we need to re-look at the issue. 60. Now, we shall deal with the first aspect of the issue raised as to whether the payment made by assessee for purchase of software

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowed the excess claim of capital expenditure of Rs.1,42,54,268/-. In our considered view there is no intentional misrepresentation of expenditure as alleged. By no stretch of imagination it can be said to be a case of attempted tax evasion as even after revision of computation, the taxable income remained Nil which is same as returned income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowed the excess claim of capital expenditure of Rs.1,42,54,268/-. In our considered view there is no intentional misrepresentation of expenditure as alleged. By no stretch of imagination it can be said to be a case of attempted tax evasion as even after revision of computation, the taxable income remained Nil which is same as returned income

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

disallowance of ₹ 70,31,561/- relating to contribution to the Environment Fund Liability under section 43B of the Act. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed revised computation of income and claimed the said amount as deductible. The plea of the assessee was that the Environment Relief Fund Liability is a contribution collected under Public Liability Fund

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

disallowance of ₹ 70,31,561/- relating to contribution to the Environment Fund Liability under section 43B of the Act. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed revised computation of income and claimed the said amount as deductible. The plea of the assessee was that the Environment Relief Fund Liability is a contribution collected under Public Liability Fund

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

254 of the IT Act and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was initiated. Against the above quantum assessment order, the assessee cooperative society preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 29.12.2023. However, till date no second appeal against the order dated 29.12.2023 passed

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

254 of the IT Act and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was initiated. Against the above quantum assessment order, the assessee cooperative society preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 29.12.2023. However, till date no second appeal against the order dated 29.12.2023 passed

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

254 of the IT Act and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was initiated. Against the above quantum assessment order, the assessee cooperative society preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 29.12.2023. However, till date no second appeal against the order dated 29.12.2023 passed

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SHIROL vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

254 of the IT Act and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was initiated. Against the above quantum assessment order, the assessee cooperative society preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 29.12.2023. However, till date no second appeal against the order dated 29.12.2023 passed

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

254 of the IT Act and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was initiated. Against the above quantum assessment order, the assessee cooperative society preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 29.12.2023. However, till date no second appeal against the order dated 29.12.2023 passed

CUMMINS INDIA LTD. 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.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

1) of the Act to determine the arm's length price of international transactions. The TPO in order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act proposed an upward adjustment of ₹ 61,19,00,000/- in respect of international transactions with associated enterprises after considering the contentions raised by the assessee on account of sale of IC Engines

AQUATECH SYSTEMS (ASIA) PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

disallowances. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer levied penalty vide order dated 30-09-2013 in respect of both the additions for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved by the order levying penalty, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected the contentions of assessee and upheld the order levying penalty

KALYAN STEELS LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1529/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 2 A.Y.2006-07 “On the facts of the case and in law, 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance

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

1 (SC) had agreed with the observations made by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del) that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 board of directors to take business decisions. The income

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

1 (SC) had agreed with the observations made by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bhart) Ltd. 254 ITR 377 (Del) that the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessman or in the position of the C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 board of directors to take business decisions. The income

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of Tribunal recomputed the total income, as a result there was net business loss of Rs.13,00,25,239/-. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 14-12-2009 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 held that the business loss is allowed to be carried forward