SUNIL SHRIRANG PAWAR,SATARA vs. ITO WARD 2 SATARA, SATARA

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1124 To 1127/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

196, Karanje Peth, Ward-2, Satara Satara – 415 001, Satara, Maharashtra PAN : AFSPP9102K Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Suhas S. Kulkarni Respondent by : Shri Pramod Shahakar Date of hearing : 03.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 10.11.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH : The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Yrs. 2014-15 to A.Y. 2017-18 are directed against the separate

SUNIL SHRIRANG PAWAR,SATARA vs. ITO WARD 2 SATARA, SATARA

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1124 To 1127/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18

196, Karanje Peth, Ward-2, Satara Satara – 415 001, Satara, Maharashtra PAN : AFSPP9102K Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Suhas S. Kulkarni Respondent by : Shri Pramod Shahakar Date of hearing : 03.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 10.11.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH : The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Yrs. 2014-15 to A.Y. 2017-18 are directed against the separate

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

reassessment order or through notice the specific circumstance or incidence i.e. specific clause (a) to clause (g) of s/s (2) of section 270 within which the case of the appellant falls so has to hold income as under-reported to trigger said penal provision. The failure continued further in identifying or determining and showcasing the specific action of the appellant

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1),NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

reassessment order or through notice the specific circumstance or incidence i.e. specific clause (a) to clause (g) of s/s (2) of section 270 within which the case of the appellant falls so has to hold income as under-reported to trigger said penal provision. The failure continued further in identifying or determining and showcasing the specific action of the appellant

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

196 ITR 188 2. CIT Vs. M/s.Vegetables Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 3. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Ltd. Vs. CBDT 159 ITR 162 (Bom.) Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that once the assessee incurs any cost towards acquisition of know-how, the deduction for the same was always intended to be allowed to the assessee. In this regard, he referred

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

196 ITR 188 2. CIT Vs. M/s.Vegetables Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 3. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Ltd. Vs. CBDT 159 ITR 162 (Bom.) Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that once the assessee incurs any cost towards acquisition of know-how, the deduction for the same was always intended to be allowed to the assessee. In this regard, he referred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

196 ITR 188 2. CIT Vs. M/s.Vegetables Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 3. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Ltd. Vs. CBDT 159 ITR 162 (Bom.) Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that once the assessee incurs any cost towards acquisition of know-how, the deduction for the same was always intended to be allowed to the assessee. In this regard, he referred

JIVARAM MAGAJI CHAOUDHARY,PUNE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 7, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1392/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.4, Road No.5, Snehdeep Palace, Tingrenagar, Pune- 411032. Pan : Aalpc3973B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By Shri Uma Shankar Prasad : Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable

section 143(3) 81,31,985/- ” 4. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the addition of Rs.68,32,775/- by observing as under :- 4 “2.1 The Income Tax assessment for Ay 2010-11 was completed on 18/12/2012 assessing the above income u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act. Assessee held this land

M/S. TIRUPATI SALES,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

reassessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 148 of the Act and added the addition of Rs.1,30,86,345/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.1,61,84,077/- for the assessment year 2010-11 on account of bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee respectively. Aggrieved with the said decision of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried

M/S. TIRUPATI SALES,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

reassessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 148 of the Act and added the addition of Rs.1,30,86,345/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.1,61,84,077/- for the assessment year 2010-11 on account of bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee respectively. Aggrieved with the said decision of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried