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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. GRIHUM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowed by way of an intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. 14. We are conscious of the fact that Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act was amended by the Finance act, 2001 by insertion of Explanation to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. We are also conscious of the fact that

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

256 (SC) Proviso to section 13 of the I.T. Act and section 21A of the WT Act lays down that exemption will not be denied if part of the income is applied for benefit of a person referred to section 13(3) of the Act, if such use for application is in compliance to mandatory terms of the Trust which

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE PANVEL vs. OUTABOX MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLP, GHATKOPAR MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the same should be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 14. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC as well as the ground raised by the assessee as per Rule 27 of the Rules. He submitted that the assessee filed

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

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

1] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the reopening u/s. 148 was justified in law and accordingly, the reassessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) was valid. 1.1] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the reopening u/s. 148 and the consequential reasst. Order passed u/s. 147 was not justified

JOHN DEERE EQUIPMENT PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

1] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the reopening u/s. 148 was justified in law and accordingly, the reassessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) was valid. 1.1] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the reopening u/s. 148 and the consequential reasst. Order passed u/s. 147 was not justified

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

256 vested in High Court of Bombay and not the High Court of Delhi. It further observed that transfer of assessment cases of the assessee under section 127(1) for some years other than the year in question has no relevance or bearing on territorial jurisdictional competence. In deciding so, it was also observed that the: `decisions of the High

E-ALLY SECURITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,RAIGAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE, PANVEL, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

Disallowance under Section 14A of Rs.2,48,85,000/- as expenses to earn exempted Dividend income of Rs.1,80,30,965/- is per se absurd and 1 378 ITR 33 2 [2018] 256

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by such order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC after considering the submissions of the assessee and relying on various decisions involving the impugned issue in favour of the assessee, deleted the addition of Rs.4

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

disallowance of exemption u/s 548 in respect of investment in agricultural land and all the conditions have been complied with (iv) The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the appellant had made substantial payments towards consideration for purchase of the new agricultural land and possession was obtained in prescribed time thereby proving

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

Disallowances Assessment years made by the Assessing Officer 2008-09 Rs.9,47,182/- 2009-10 Rs.1,25,463/- 2010-11 Rs.1,61,307/- 2011-12 Rs.11,37,422/- A.Ys.2008-09 to 2011-12 3. Aggrieved by the assessment orders passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147, the assessee filed appeal for the respective assessment years before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

Disallowances Assessment years made by the Assessing Officer 2008-09 Rs.9,47,182/- 2009-10 Rs.1,25,463/- 2010-11 Rs.1,61,307/- 2011-12 Rs.11,37,422/- A.Ys.2008-09 to 2011-12 3. Aggrieved by the assessment orders passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147, the assessee filed appeal for the respective assessment years before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

Disallowances Assessment years made by the Assessing Officer 2008-09 Rs.9,47,182/- 2009-10 Rs.1,25,463/- 2010-11 Rs.1,61,307/- 2011-12 Rs.11,37,422/- A.Ys.2008-09 to 2011-12 3. Aggrieved by the assessment orders passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147, the assessee filed appeal for the respective assessment years before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

Disallowances Assessment years made by the Assessing Officer 2008-09 Rs.9,47,182/- 2009-10 Rs.1,25,463/- 2010-11 Rs.1,61,307/- 2011-12 Rs.11,37,422/- A.Ys.2008-09 to 2011-12 3. Aggrieved by the assessment orders passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147, the assessee filed appeal for the respective assessment years before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

WARANA INDUSRIES LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

256/- d) Disallowance of foreign tour expenses of the director Smt. Surekha S. Gulave to USA Rs.9,28,290/- 4. So far as the disallowance of interest of Rs.4,15,71,718/- is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained an amount of Rs.27,01,163/- disallowed by the Assessing Officer u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act by observing

PRAJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.33,20,874/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. 2. The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that : a) The appellant has suo-moto computed disallowance u/s 14A at Rs.51,41,522/- in accordance with law and hence no further disallowance was called for. b) Disallowance