SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

property at 70, Koregaon Park, it is now settled legal issue that the expenditure by Serum Institute of India Ltd. constitutes an allowable expenditure so long as there are revenue in nature. Regarding the expenditure of capital nature of same analogy, assessee only wanted allowability of depreciation on the said capitalised expenditure considered for business purposes. 56. On hearing both

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

property at 70, Koregaon Park, it is now settled legal issue that the expenditure by Serum Institute of India Ltd. constitutes an allowable expenditure so long as there are revenue in nature. Regarding the expenditure of capital nature of same analogy, assessee only wanted allowability of depreciation on the said capitalised expenditure considered for business purposes. 56. On hearing both

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

property at 70, Koregaon Park, it is now settled legal issue that the expenditure by Serum Institute of India Ltd. constitutes an allowable expenditure so long as there are revenue in nature. Regarding the expenditure of capital nature of same analogy, assessee only wanted allowability of depreciation on the said capitalised expenditure considered for business purposes. 56. On hearing both

SAFIQUE SADRUDDIN BALSARRA,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6 (3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

163 (Karnataka) and by referring to relevant paragraphs, he argued that sub-section (4) of section 54F of the Act is not attracted if the assessee invests the sale consideration derived from the transfer either in purchasing the property or constructing the residential house

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

Housing Society. It is undisputed fact. Therefore, 10 Shri Rajendra L. Agarwal we are of the opinion that in principle, the claim of the assessee should be allowed on the enhancement which was considered by the AO. However, the same is subject to the verification of the evidence and documents filed by assessee before the Assessing Officer during remand proceedings

SHRIKANT ANANTRAO ZORI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

house property\" of Rs.1,44,045/- and income from other\nsources of Rs.22,420/-. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.2,05,753/-\nunder various sections of Chapter-VIA and also claimed tax relief of\nRs.6,57,914/- u/s 89(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the assessee submitted that the management of Pfizer\nHealthcare India Private

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. ABHAYRAJ FATTEHRAJ CHORDIYA, C/O LAXMI OIL MIL

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

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

house property, income from business and income from other sources. He filed his return of income on 31.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.17,01,810. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. C & M Farming Ltd. (C&M Group cases

BENCHMARRK REALTY LLP,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1396/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Benchmarrk Realty Llp, The Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Sr.No.17/19, Near Balaji V Temple, Kate Wasti, Punawale, S Pune – 411033. Pan: Aanfb 7064 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 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)-6, Pune Dated 25.07.2019 Emanating From Order Of Assessing Officer Dated 22.03.2018 Under Section 271B Of The Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015- 16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 44AB will be applicable. In this context, we refer to following decisions of Hon’ble High Courts. 5.4 The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Oil Mills Vs.ITO [2007] 163 TAXMAN 154 (RAJ.): Quote, “ 23.Having given our careful consideration to the rival submissions and looking to the object with which the provisions have been enacted

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

property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming to the second agreement which has been referred to by both the learned authorized representatives, which is placed at pages 14 to 17 of Paper

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

property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming to the second agreement which has been referred to by both the learned authorized representatives, which is placed at pages 14 to 17 of Paper

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

property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming to the second agreement which has been referred to by both the learned authorized representatives, which is placed at pages 14 to 17 of Paper

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

property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming to the second agreement which has been referred to by both the learned authorized representatives, which is placed at pages 14 to 17 of Paper

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing Society, Kothrud, Pune as well at the office premise at 4-7, A J Crystal, Tilak Road, Pune, various incriminating documents were found and seized. Shri Manoj Chhajed is found to be maintaining bank account with Axis Bank bearing account no. 350010100056665. On examination of said bank account, it is noticed that there are many credit entries from Kolkata