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

269 ITR 35 (Delhi) that the violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2) is essentially a question of fact to be determined on basis of factual analysis. 10. Reverting to the facts of the present case, there was no justification or reasonableness in paying Rs.10.00 lakh per month to the Managing 16 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

disallowances made by the learned AO and TPO and upheld by the learned DRP be deleted. ITA No.227/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14(A) Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

269 (Raipur - Trib.) (ii) Dera Baba Bhai Gurdas Ji Udasin Trust (Regd) (Mansa) v. ITO [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 278 (Amritsar - Trib.)] (iii) Alpha Educational Trust v. DCIT (Exemption) - [2023] 150 taxmann.com 20 (Chennai - Trib.) III. Proposition 3: If an Application for Registration is not disposed off within 6 months, then same isdeemed to be accepted/approved, in terms of section 12AA

NELSON GLOBAL PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE, MAHARAHSTRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

section 37 of the Act: Erred on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law by confirming the disallowance for the warranty expenses amounting to Rs.12,32,732 without appreciating the fact that these are actual settlement of warranty expenses with the customers of the Appellant. Erred on the facts in circumstances of the case

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

disallowance of deduction claimed under\nsections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID\nor section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond\nthe due date specified under sub-section (1) of\nsection 139\"\n6. Given that there is no specific requirement in section 10AA\nto file the return of income within the due date

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

disallowance of deduction claimed under\nsections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID\nor section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond\nthe due date specified under sub-section (1) of\nsection 139\"\n\n6. Given that there is no specific requirement in section 10AA\nto file the return of income within the due date

DANA INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 92 provides that: `Any income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arm’s length price’. Thus it is graphically clear that the ALP and the consequential transfer pricing adjustment is contemplated only in respect of the international transactions and not the entity level transactions. It is seen from the TPO’s order that

BAPURAO RAMKISHAN KAGNE,,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.739/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Bapural Ramkishan Kagne, The Commissioner Of Prop. M/S.Sai Electricals & Vs Income Tax, Electronics, Plot No.3, Om Sai Aurangabad. Avenue, Thakre Nagar, N-2, Cidco, Aurangabad. Pan: Akwpk 3467 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena - Cit Date Of Hearing 26/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aurangabad, Dated 26.02.2014 For The A.Y. 2008-09 Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Was Not Justified By Giving Direction To The Ao To Give Consequential Effect To The Order By Adding Back Contract Receipts Of Rs.17,93,686/- To The Total Income Of The Assessees. 2. The Learned Cit Erred In Making Giving Direction To The Ao For Further Enquiry In Respect Of Tds To Be Deducted On Dg Rent Payment, Rather The Dg Rent Payment To Single Person Does Not Exceed Rs.1,20,000/- 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit Was Not Justified In Disallowing Rs.23,269/- (Ground Is Not Forced).

section 263 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT was not justified by giving direction to the AO to give consequential effect to the order by adding back contract receipts of Rs.17,93,686/- to the total income of the assessees

SIDHESH MOHAN RAIKAR,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.294/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

disallowance has been adjudicated in para 5.1 of this order, therefore, the AO is directed to recompute the interest payable under the provisions of section 234B & 234C in the Order Giving Effect accordingly. The Appeal filed on this ground is partly allowed for statistical purposes. TAX DEPAN 6. In the result, the appeal is Partly allowed for statistical purposes

M/S. BITWISE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.756/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bitwise Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Bitwise World, Off International Vs Convention Centre, Shivaji Nagar, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune – 411 016. Pan: Aaacb 4239 K Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune, Dated 15.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A)-1, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Addition U/S.36(1)(Iii) Of The Ita, 1961 Of Rs.69,51,455/- Made By Learned Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune(Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao). 2. The Learned Cit(A)-1 & The Learned Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That, Share Purchase Transaction For Which Loan Was Availed Was A Business Transaction I.E. After Buying Shares, Bitwise Inc., Usa, Became 100% Subsidiary Of The Appellant Company. 3. The Learned Cit(A)-1 & The Learned Ao Further Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That Appellant Company Benefitted From Share Purchase Transaction In Terms Of Direct Control Over Bitwise Inc., Usa & Assurance As To Getting Business In Future Years.

section 57, the basic premise of case is same. In this case interest on loan taken for purchasing shares for acquiring controlling interest in the company cannot be held to be expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business. In the case of CIT vs Phil Corporation Ltd. (supra) it was never contended that investment in shares is not a business

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN MAHARASHTRA OPEN UNIVERSITY,NASHIK vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,-EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowing the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act and 3 determined taxable income of Rs.52,63,18,269/-. The above assessed income was arrived at in following manner :- 1 Gross Receipt as per ITR 1,66,61,49,930/- 2 Receipt accrued by the assessee 15,44,74,562/- 3 Net income received by the assessee

DAMODAR JOMA KHOT,PANVEL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The assessee filed the return of Income for AY 2017-18 and claimed the said income as Exempt Income u/s 10(37) of the Act.Ld.AR took us through the relevant part of the Return of Income i.e schedule EI details of Exempt Income which is at page 34 of the paper book

EAST WEST SEEDS INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

269 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merck Ltd. reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 23 (Bom) A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 and argued that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (supra) held that the transfer pricing adjustment done by the AO/TPO without determining the ALP is bad under

EAST WEST SEEDS INDIA PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

269 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merck Ltd. reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 23 (Bom) A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 and argued that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (supra) held that the transfer pricing adjustment done by the AO/TPO without determining the ALP is bad under

EAST WEST SEEDS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

269 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Merck Ltd. reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 23 (Bom) A.Ys. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 and argued that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (supra) held that the transfer pricing adjustment done by the AO/TPO without determining the ALP is bad under

KUMAR BUILDERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Disallowance on commission payment of Rs.57,30,908/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in-limine for non-prosecution. 4. At the outset, there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 269 days. The appellant filed a petition praying for condonation

OSWAL BANDHU SAMAJ,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.837/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Oswal Bandhu Samaj, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune – 411 001 ......अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan : Aaato0138K

disallowed exemption u/s. 11 (1)(d) of the Act. It further be held that the reasons assigned by the AO and the first appellate authority for taking such view are unjustified, unwarranted and not in accordance with the facts and provisions of law in the case. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the first Appellate Authority

GRUPO ANTOLIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1207/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Grupo Antolin India Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Limited, B 25, Midc, Ranjangaon, Taluka: Shirur, Pune- 412220. Pan : Aaaca6730G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. D. Mistri Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Cit(A)- 13, Pune’S Order Dated 10.02.2017 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/45/2013-14/606 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee Pleads The Following Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal :-

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) assessment dated 30.05.2013 in very terms making the impugned adjustment as per the TPO’s findings. The assessee preferred appeal. We note that although the assessee had filed its relevant documents which already formed part of the case file, the CIT(A) sought for the field authorities’ remand report on 18.07.2014 directing the Assessing