SUNAND CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

192 (SC). 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his third plank of argument submitted that the assessee has debited the interest but such interest has been capitalized and the assessee has not claimed any interest expenditure during this year, therefore, no addition could have been made on such expenditure and at the best the work-in- progress could

SUNANDA CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

192 (SC). 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his third plank of argument submitted that the assessee has debited the interest but such interest has been capitalized and the assessee has not claimed any interest expenditure during this year, therefore, no addition could have been made on such expenditure and at the best the work-in- progress could

JOHN DEERE EQUIPMENT PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

reassessment u/s. 147 be declared null and void. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.12,837,828/- u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of information system charges and telecommunication expenses debited by the assessee without appreciating that no disallowance was warranted on facts of the case. ITA Nos.1163 & 1164/PUN/2017 3 John Deere

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

reassessment u/s. 147 be declared null and void. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.12,837,828/- u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of information system charges and telecommunication expenses debited by the assessee without appreciating that no disallowance was warranted on facts of the case. ITA Nos.1163 & 1164/PUN/2017 3 John Deere

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

Reassess. It is therefore requested that notice may please be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings initiated under section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on several counts. Thus, it is requested that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

Reassess. It is therefore requested that notice may please be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings initiated under section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on several counts. Thus, it is requested that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

Reassess. It is therefore requested that notice may please be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings initiated under section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on several counts. Thus, it is requested that

RAJA BASHUMIYA MANIYAR,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

reassessment proceeding\ninitiated U/Sec. 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act by the Ld.AO is without\njurisdiction and void ab initio as the impugned notice issued under\nsection 148 is time-barred as per the proviso to section 147 of the Act.\n2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming that the assessment order\npassed by the Ld.AO U/Sec 147 rw.s.144

SUNITA MACHHINDRA SONAWANE,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (3),, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

192/-. At the end of the reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4,70,000/- as per the discussion given in para 6 of the assessment order. The said para 6 of the assessment order is extracted hereunder :- “6. Information was also called for u/s 133(6) of the Act from

VINEET TIWARI,BANGALORE vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against Credit Card bills Total 72,44,455/- 3. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened the assessment and accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

VINEET TIWARI,BENGALURU vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against Credit Card bills Total 72,44,455/- 3. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after recording reasons reopened the assessment and accordingly a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. Thereafter, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

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 to amendment of section 32 by the Finance Act, 1998 which

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"

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 to amendment of section 32 by the Finance Act, 1998 which

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"

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 to amendment of section 32 by the Finance Act, 1998 which