DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

201(1A) of the Act in the case of Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2008-09, wherein the Assessing Officer held that the payments received constitute royalty and fees for technical services. After recording aforesaid reasons for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee filed letter stating that earlier

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

201(1A) of the Act in the case of Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2008-09, wherein the Assessing Officer held that the payments received constitute royalty and fees for technical services. After recording aforesaid reasons for reopening the assessment, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee filed letter stating that earlier

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

1] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the reopening u/s. 148 was justified in law and accordingly, the reassessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) was valid. 1.1] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the reopening u/s. 148 and the consequential reasst. Order passed u/s. 147 was not justified

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

1] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the reopening u/s. 148 was justified in law and accordingly, the reassessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) was valid. 1.1] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the reopening u/s. 148 and the consequential reasst. Order passed u/s. 147 was not justified

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

u/s 234 had been charged. 3. The Department of Income Tax, through its Officers send such letters and intimidate the Assessee, leading him to spend money on the proceedings besides causing mental anguish. The ITD may be directed to pay and amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Indian Army Welfare Fund as compensation for this frivolous action. ITA No.929/PUN/2023

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

u/s 234 had been charged. 3. The Department of Income Tax, through its Officers send such letters and intimidate the Assessee, leading him to spend money on the proceedings besides causing mental anguish. The ITD may be directed to pay and amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Indian Army Welfare Fund as compensation for this frivolous action. ITA No.929/PUN/2023

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

u/s 234 had been charged. 3. The Department of Income Tax, through its Officers send such letters and intimidate the Assessee, leading him to spend money on the proceedings besides causing mental anguish. The ITD may be directed to pay and amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Indian Army Welfare Fund as compensation for this frivolous action. ITA No.929/PUN/2023

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

201(1A) but no disallowance could have been made for the impugned assessment year. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being not in accordance with law should be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed. 14. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order

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

201(1A) but no disallowance could have been made for the impugned assessment year. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being not in accordance with law should be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed. 14. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

u/s. 201(1) was passed. The ld. DR further contended that in view of the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2012 to section 9 and 195, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 148 r.w.s 147 of the Act. The ld. DR prayed for upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissing

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

u/s. 201(1) was passed. The ld. DR further contended that in view of the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2012 to section 9 and 195, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 148 r.w.s 147 of the Act. The ld. DR prayed for upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissing

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

u/s. 201(1) was passed. The ld. DR further contended that in view of the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2012 to section 9 and 195, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 148 r.w.s 147 of the Act. The ld. DR prayed for upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissing

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

u/s. 201(1) was passed. The ld. DR further contended that in view of the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2012 to section 9 and 195, the Assessing Officer has rightly invoked the provisions of section 148 r.w.s 147 of the Act. The ld. DR prayed for upholding the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismissing

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 189 of\nthe Act and upholding the impugned assessment order in case of a dissolved\nfirm for the relevant AY 2017-18 i.e. post dissolution when the firm is not even\nin existence.\n6.\nThe Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the Ld.\nAO and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.\n7.\nWe have heard

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ZEAL INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

147 of the IT Act after obtaining approval from the concerned authority. In response to notice issued u/s 148 dated 25.02.2016, the appellant filed return of income on 14.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 41,680/-. During the reassessment proceedings on being asked as to why the interest expenses of Rs. 4,69,57,184/- should not be disallowed u/s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the provisions contained in section 12A(b) were only directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “8. Coming to the first argument that Section 12A(b) is mandatory, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee relies on a judgment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the provisions contained in section 12A(b) were only directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “8. Coming to the first argument that Section 12A(b) is mandatory, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee relies on a judgment

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the provisions contained in section 12A(b) were only directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “8. Coming to the first argument that Section 12A(b) is mandatory, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee relies on a judgment

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

147 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the provisions contained in section 12A(b) were only directory in nature and not mandatory. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “8. Coming to the first argument that Section 12A(b) is mandatory, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee relies on a judgment