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

72,286/- as IT Support Services and the same was not offered to tax. The Assessing Officer further held that the said receipts paid to the assessee were in the nature of Royalty and Fees for Technical Services and taxable in India as per Article 12 of DTAA of India and Sweden as well as section 9(1

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

72,286/- as IT Support Services and the same was not offered to tax. The Assessing Officer further held that the said receipts paid to the assessee were in the nature of Royalty and Fees for Technical Services and taxable in India as per Article 12 of DTAA of India and Sweden as well as section 9(1

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, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. The Hon. Court held that the AO lacked jurisdiction under Section 147, rendering the notice invalid. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the notice under Section 148 and allowed the petition of the assessee. (Relevant paragraphs 16 to 24). • In the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal vs. ACIT

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

72 ITD 474. In all cases the gist is like this "Simply because assessee agreed to addition of concealed income after detection thereof and filed return in response to enquiry conducted by department, assessee cannot escape from penalty u/s 271(1)(c)' Moreover, The Supreme court in the case of MAK Data (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. NARENDRA SAMPATLAL BAFNA, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

147 was not valid and the proper course of action that should have been taken by the Assessing Officer was u/s 153C as the provisions of section 153C of the Act are clearly applicable to the facts of the case. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC on the issue of validity of re-assessment proceedings

SUBHASH RUNWAL,BIBWEWADI, PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(4) PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13 Subhash Runwal 204, Solitari-5, Nr. Kalyan Bhel, Bibwewadi Rd., Pune-411037. Pan: Adbpr7670R. . . . . . . . Appellant

u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of ITAT-Pune Page 12 of 16 Subhash Runwal Vs ITO ITA No. 1279/PUN/2024 AY: 2012-13 the Act was ill-believed as such addition was not only without any substance but purely was to outdo the settled law and to buy the extended scope subscribed in explanation 3 to section 147

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

72[or where return has been fumished for the first time under section 148]; (c) the income reassessed in greater than the income assessed or reassessed immediately before such reassessment: (d) the amount of deemed total income assessed or reassessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC, as the case may be, is greater than the deemed

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

72,591 24-12-2019 2,51,96,000 2016-17 16,254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a survey u/s 133A

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

72,591 24-12-2019 2,51,96,000 2016-17 16,254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a survey u/s 133A

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

72,591 24-12-2019 2,51,96,000 2016-17 16,254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a survey u/s 133A

NANDKUMAR NAMDEORAO DIWATE,KOLHAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1161/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nandkumar Namdeorao Diwate, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), 492, C-Ward, Kolhapur Opp. Main Rajaram Highschool, Juna Rajwada, Karveer, Kolhapur, Maharashtra-416001 Pan : Aeqpd 1603L Appellant Respondent

u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’)for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. Return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 was filed on 01-03-2012 declaring total income of Rs.1,53,010/-. The said return 2 of income was processed u/s.143

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

72 that the losses must be claimed in the return of income. The ld. AR further argued that in the original return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 the assessee had declared total income as „Nil‟. Thus, there was no question of claiming set off of loss in subsequent assessment years. The issue of carried forward of business

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

72 that the losses must be claimed in the return of income. The ld. AR further argued that in the original return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 the assessee had declared total income as „Nil‟. Thus, there was no question of claiming set off of loss in subsequent assessment years. The issue of carried forward of business

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

72 that the losses must be claimed in the return of income. The ld. AR further argued that in the original return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 the assessee had declared total income as „Nil‟. Thus, there was no question of claiming set off of loss in subsequent assessment years. The issue of carried forward of business

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

72 that the losses must be claimed in the return of income. The ld. AR further argued that in the original return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 the assessee had declared total income as „Nil‟. Thus, there was no question of claiming set off of loss in subsequent assessment years. The issue of carried forward of business

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

u/s 143(3) / 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.66,20,000/- on account of violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC quashed the re-assessment proceedings, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We do not find any infirmity

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

reassessment proceedings when admittedly conditions specified u/s 147 of the ITA, 1961 for valid initiation were not satisfied in as much as all the facts were truly and fully disclosed in the original assessment proceedings and order was passed after due verification. As such, the addition was only the result of a change in opinion and the action

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

u/s 147 for AY 2006-07 were initiated on 20/03/2013 2. During reassessment and subsequent appellate proceedings, it was consistently explained that the turnover recorded in AY 2006-07 was an inadvertent error based on an incorrect professional advice, as the real income from the project had not accrued. 3. The core contention is that mere incorrect accounting entries

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

1) whereas in MB India's case, the deduction is claimed under section 35AB which was introduced later in the point of time due to change in intention of the Government (to attract flow of technology into India) to allow deduction for such payments. In MB India's case, the transfer of technical know-how for consideration (between MB India