INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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 : 2017-18

36 CO No.43/PUN/2025 February, 2025 WP3057_2019.DOC jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue the impugned notice would be required to be considered on the basis of the departmental record and on such basis, the relevant provisions of law which would govern the facts and circumstances of the case in the hands of the Assessing Officer. In the present case

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

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 153D. the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148." We are in complete agreement

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

36 before the Hon'ble ITAT in support of the claim of the appellant that in view of the facts of the appellant's case as the income voluntarily declared in the Revised return of income had been accepted by the Assessing Officer and assessed as such in the assessment order, no penalty in assessee's u/s 271(1

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

vii. Searched person (Shri Yuvraj Dhamale) had not only accepted that payment in cash was collected as unaccounted part consideration for sale of flat but also offered the same as undisclosed income before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. 4.2.2 The evidence as mentioned above is also corroborated with the statement of the key person of the Dhamale Group

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

vii. Searched person (Shri Yuvraj Dhamale) had not only accepted that payment in cash was collected as unaccounted part consideration for sale of flat but also offered the same as undisclosed income before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. 4.2.2 The evidence as mentioned above is also corroborated with the statement of the key person of the Dhamale Group

RAMANLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

vii. Searched person (Shri Yuvraj Dhamale) had not only accepted that payment in cash was collected as unaccounted part consideration for sale of flat but also offered the same as undisclosed income before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. 4.2.2 The evidence as mentioned above is also corroborated with the statement of the key person of the Dhamale Group

RAMLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

vii. Searched person (Shri Yuvraj Dhamale) had not only accepted that payment in cash was collected as unaccounted part consideration for sale of flat but also offered the same as undisclosed income before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. 4.2.2 The evidence as mentioned above is also corroborated with the statement of the key person of the Dhamale Group

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

vii. Searched person (Shri Yuvraj Dhamale) had not only accepted that payment in cash was collected as unaccounted part consideration for sale of flat but also offered the same as undisclosed income before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. 4.2.2 The evidence as mentioned above is also corroborated with the statement of the key person of the Dhamale Group

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

The appeal stands dismissed

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

vii. Searched person (Shri Yuvraj Dhamale) had not only accepted that payment in cash was collected as unaccounted part consideration for sale of flat but also offered the same as undisclosed income before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. 4.2.2 The evidence as mentioned above is also corroborated with the statement of the key person of the Dhamale Group

RITVIK SANDEEP KOLATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

vii)(b) of the Act. This sum represents difference between the assessee’s actual purchase price and stamp value of the corresponding capital asset. Sec.149(1)(a), amended w.e.f. 01.04.2021 vide Finance Act, 2021 admittedly prescribes limitation of three to ten years under clause (b) thereof subject to a rider that the “income which has escaped assessment amounts

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

vii) Meaning of the term „lump sum‟ as used in section 35AB also includes payment of consideration in installments if the same is fixed upfront. (viii) Once the assesee incurs any cost towards acquisition of the know how, deduction for the same was always intended to be allowed to the assessee. (ix) Since MB India has issues shares in lieu

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"

vii) Cash payment 40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods √ xi) Excess interest provision reversed 1,72,87,043 xii) Donation 35,500 xiii) Stamp/Registration charges on 68,47,448 increase in share capital

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"

vii) Cash payment 40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods √ xi) Excess interest provision reversed 1,72,87,043 xii) Donation 35,500 xiii) Stamp/Registration charges on 68,47,448 increase in share capital

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

The appeal stands dismissed

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

vii. Searched person (Shri Yuvraj Dhamale) had not only accepted that payment in cash was collected as unaccounted part consideration for sale of flat but also offered the same as undisclosed income before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. 4.2.2 The evidence as mentioned above is also corroborated with the statement of the key person of the Dhamale Group

ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

vii. Searched person (Shri Yuvraj Dhamale) had not only accepted that payment in cash was collected as unaccounted part consideration for sale of flat but also offered the same as undisclosed income before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. 4.2.2 The evidence as mentioned above is also corroborated with the statement of the key person of the Dhamale Group

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

vii. Searched person (Shri Yuvraj Dhamale) had not only accepted that payment in cash was collected as unaccounted part consideration for sale of flat but also offered the same as undisclosed income before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission. 4.2.2 The evidence as mentioned above is also corroborated with the statement of the key person of the Dhamale Group

CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

36 CCH 0310 (Delhi Trib.) 2. CIT Vs. Pritam Das Narang (2015) 94 CCH 0014 (Delhi High Court) 3. CIT Vs. Bigabass Maheshwari Sewa Samiti (2008) 220 CTR 369 4. Bakulbhai Ramanlal Patel Vs. ITO (2111) 79 CCH 0204 (Guj. High Court) 5. CIT Vs. Batra (2008) 76 CCH 0918 (Delhi High Court) 6. DIT Vs. M/s. S.R.M.B. Diary Farming

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]” 5.5 If the provisions of law contained under section 14A and diction of section 14A is perused

HETAL RAKESH MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Hetal Rakesh Mehta Acit, Central Circle 1(2), 9/10, Vidya Nagar, 60 Feet Road, Vs. Pune Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – 400077 Pan: Ammpm9670L (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment was pending as on the date of search and in the absence of any incriminating material in relation to alleged commission income, the addition was not permissible under the law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.11,36