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

M/S. TAO PUBLISHING PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1140/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(a) OF THE ACT Rs. 5,60,269/-: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRASANNA PURPLE MOBILITY SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

269 ITR 535 (P & H). The assessee in the present case has not be able to bring any material on record to indicate the purpose or the commercial expediency for advancing the aforesaid amount and the benefits accruing out of said advances is apparently not shown to have served any business purpose of the assessee. Thus when the assessee borrows

RAGBIRSINGH MALIKSINGH RAJPAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

269 (Bom). In both the cases, assessment was completed by way of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and it was observed that in both the cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that where the assessment has been completed by intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, there can be no question of change of opinion

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

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

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD.,JALGAON vs. DY. CIT, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

269/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.19.12.2011 and the total income before setting up of losses was determined at Rs.1,88,19,97,609/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.19.03.2013 (in appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)-II/429/11-12) granted

M/S. THERMO ENGINEERS PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

disallowance made @ 25% of the amount of purchases is very high and the same may be restricted to a reasonable level considering the facts of the case. 7] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is a company

M/S. THERMO ENGINEERS PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

disallowance made @ 25% of the amount of purchases is very high and the same may be restricted to a reasonable level considering the facts of the case. 7] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee is a company

COMMON WEALTH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.977/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11

section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Pride Group on 07.09.2011. The assessee is one of the concerns belonging to Pride Group. The Government Registered Valuer Shri Nitin Lele was appointed for verification of cost incurred for the project ‘The Mall’ undertaken by M/s. Commonwealth Developers Pvt. Ltd. As per report dated 25.05.2012, the expenses

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. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

disallowance of interest paid to partners. Against the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), both, the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before us. 3. The assessee in its appeal has raised 5 grounds of appeal. Shri Sunil Pathak appearing on behalf of the assessee stated at the Bar that the assessee does not wish to press ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

disallowance of interest paid to partners. Against the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), both, the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before us. 3. The assessee in its appeal has raised 5 grounds of appeal. Shri Sunil Pathak appearing on behalf of the assessee stated at the Bar that the assessee does not wish to press ground

ACIT, CIR.-6., PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPER LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2008 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-6, Pune …. Vs. Sakal Papers Ltd., 595, Budhawar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaccs7605Q

section 80IA. This action being not in accordance with the law it is prayed that the same may be allowed. 6. The issue in ground of appeal No.1 is against disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses of Jalgaon office. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had purchased building at Jalgaon for its Jalgaon edition of Daily

SAKAL PAPER LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIR.-6,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2008 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-6, Pune …. Vs. Sakal Papers Ltd., 595, Budhawar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaccs7605Q

section 80IA. This action being not in accordance with the law it is prayed that the same may be allowed. 6. The issue in ground of appeal No.1 is against disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses of Jalgaon office. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had purchased building at Jalgaon for its Jalgaon edition of Daily