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 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

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 234, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply

JAYNT VASUDEO ARADHYE,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.683/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Villa No.25, Indradhanu, Laxmi Peth, Vishnu Mill Compound, Solapur- 413001. Pan : Aappa8903M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2022-23 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. The Cpc Was Not Correct Both Factually & Legally In Not Considering The Claim Of Brought Forwarded Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs 27,78,028/-. 11. Section 143(1) As It Stands On The Statute Books As On Today, Does Not Permit Either Cpc Or The Ao To Make Such Adjustments As They Are Beyond The Scope Of The Said Section.

24 (in respect of the property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 23) or clause (iia) of sub- section (1) of section 32 or section 32AD or section 33AB or section 33ABA or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iia) or sub- clause (iii) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2AA) of section 35 or section 35AD

SHREE GARUDA PLANT PRODUCTS LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, NASHIK

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.492/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik. Pan: Aaacg 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishint Gandhi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 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(Appeals)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 19.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Nashik ["The Cit (A)" For Short] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Nashik, ["The Ao" For Short] Which Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Without Affording A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Invoking Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Act, Whereby A Disallowance Of Rs.12,81,831/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Appellant.

24 is reproduced here as under : Sale: Kimplas Piping System Ltd Rs.14,37,840/- Interest Income Kimplas Piping System Ltd Rs.22,77,738/- Deposit Kimplas Piping System Ltd Rs.15,00,000/- Borrowings Kimplas Piping System Ltd Rs.11,12,387/- ITA No.492/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products Ltd.[A] 3.5 Thus in the Audit Report the assessee

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

vi) or any hospital or other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub- clause (via) or any fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or any trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

vi) or any hospital or other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub- clause (via) or any fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or any trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

vi) or any hospital or other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub- clause (via) or any fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or any trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

24(b) of the Act on account of interest paid on housing loan amounting to Rs.2 lakh resulting in loss of Rs.2 lakh which has been set off against the other income of the previous year. He, therefore, asked the assessee to furnish evidence in respect of housing loan availed, copy of the loan account statement and the certificate from

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

vi) Generally, the work for additional amenities start after the maximum amount of the consideration is made. The amenities were different for different customers, depending upon the requirement of the customers. (vii) Without prejudice, even the diary shows that the entire sum of Rs. 137 lacs were not received. paid. In fact, amount of Rs. 70.01 lacs was not received

MOHD SHAFI MOHD YUSUF PATEL,,RAIGAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - PANVEL,, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri C.M. Gargआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.70/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

vi) dealing with interest on 6 Mohs. Shafi Mohd Yusuf Patel capital borrowed for construction, repairs, renewal or reconstruction of house property] provided for deductions of Expenses on repairs and collection of rent; Insurance premium; amount of annual charge; ground rent; land revenue; and vacancy allowance. Only clause (i) of section 24, dealing with expenses on repairs and collection

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

vi) or any\nhospital or other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub-\nclause (via) or any fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or\nany trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23C)\nof section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11,\nincludes any income

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

vi) or any\nhospital or other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub-\nclause (via) or any fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or\nany trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23C)\nof section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11,\nincludes any income

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

vi) or any\nhospital or other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub-\nclause (via) or any fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or\nany trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23C)\nof section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11,\nincludes any income

BRAHMAN SABHA KARVEER,MAHARASHTRA vs. CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, CIT EXEMPTION PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought to be remedied by the legislation

DADASAHEB TIRODKAR SHAIKSHANIK ACADEMY,SINDHUDURG vs. ITOD EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

vi)\n8g\nh\nExemption under section 10(23C)(via)\n8h\n9\nAmount eligible for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab), 10(23C)(iliac), 10(23C)(iiiad), 10(23C)(iilae), 9\n3328804\n10(23D), 10(23DA), 10(23FB), 10(24), 10(46), 10(47)\na\nExemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)\n9a\nb\nExemption under section 10(23C)(liiac

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

24). • In the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. ACIT, 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan) [2024], the Hon. High Court held that "once there is incriminating material seized or requisitioned belonging or relatable to the person other than on whom search was conducted, section 153C is to be resorted to". (Relevant paragraph 23 onwards). • A similar view is also taken