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

68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom.), which was also in relation to assessment being completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter, issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court also considered the ratio CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 laid down by the Apex Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh

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

68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom.), which was also in relation to assessment being completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter, issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court also considered the ratio CO Nos.20 & 28/PUN/2015 laid down by the Apex Court in ACIT Vs. Rajesh

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 4, Pune …. Vs. Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bhageerath, 402, Senapati Bapat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411016 Pan: Aabcp1209Q

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 10A(7) r.w.s 80IA(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.5,12,68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. SECO TOOLS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objections of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom) for the proposition that before invoking the provisions of section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, where the original assessment was completed vide intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and held as under:- “17. We have heard

M/S. TATA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1433/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Tata Technologies Limited, Plot No.25, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hingewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaact3092N Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation)-Ii, Pune

68,423 AMC for software USA ANSYS Inc 8,38,536 Software license USA Beta Cae Systems S.A 10,53,360 Software license Greece Beta Cae Systems S.A 1,46,300 Software license Greece Parametric Technology 1,37,009 Software license USA Corporation Proforma Corporation 40,329 Software license USA Spicer Corporation 42,437 Software license USA Tata Technologies

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

10 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors legal issue as to section under which the proceedings could take places. He further pointed out that merits of the cases of partnership firms were identical to the individual except no search on partnership firms were carried out. It was the year of search, where prior to Survey, the assessee had already furnished

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

10 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors legal issue as to section under which the proceedings could take places. He further pointed out that merits of the cases of partnership firms were identical to the individual except no search on partnership firms were carried out. It was the year of search, where prior to Survey, the assessee had already furnished

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

10 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors legal issue as to section under which the proceedings could take places. He further pointed out that merits of the cases of partnership firms were identical to the individual except no search on partnership firms were carried out. It was the year of search, where prior to Survey, the assessee had already furnished

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

10 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors legal issue as to section under which the proceedings could take places. He further pointed out that merits of the cases of partnership firms were identical to the individual except no search on partnership firms were carried out. It was the year of search, where prior to Survey, the assessee had already furnished

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

10 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors legal issue as to section under which the proceedings could take places. He further pointed out that merits of the cases of partnership firms were identical to the individual except no search on partnership firms were carried out. It was the year of search, where prior to Survey, the assessee had already furnished

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

10 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors legal issue as to section under which the proceedings could take places. He further pointed out that merits of the cases of partnership firms were identical to the individual except no search on partnership firms were carried out. It was the year of search, where prior to Survey, the assessee had already furnished

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 वष"

10(21) of the Act is not available to the assessee Trust. The fact relating to Corpus-specific- donations of Rs.3 crores is also undisputed. 19. Considering the above, we need to examine the non-taxability of the corpus donations in assessee’s case despite inapplicability of the provisions of section 12(1)/11(1)(d)/section 35/10

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

Section 80HHC deals with deductions in respect of profits from export of computer software etc. 23. There also the words used are "export out of India". But to be eligible for deduction under the aforesaid provision, mere export out of India is not sufficient. What is to be exported out of India should be from India to a place

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

10 of the said decision, wherein reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (supra) and it was observed that the said decision dealt with a case of requirement to deduct tax at source under section 195(1) of the Act on amounts

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

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

10 of the said decision, wherein reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (supra) and it was observed that the said decision dealt with a case of requirement to deduct tax at source under section 195(1) of the Act on amounts

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

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

10 of the said decision, wherein reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (supra) and it was observed that the said decision dealt with a case of requirement to deduct tax at source under section 195(1) of the Act on amounts

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

10 of the said decision, wherein reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (supra) and it was observed that the said decision dealt with a case of requirement to deduct tax at source under section 195(1) of the Act on amounts

AJINKYA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SEVAK SAH. PATSANSTHA, MARYADIT,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10 provisions or deduction under heading C for certain\nincome is not made by the assessee in his return of income the deduction is\ndenied. As per sec 80AC deduction is allowed only if in computing the total\nincome of an assessee of any previous year relevant to the assessment\nyear commencing on or after 1st day of April

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

1)(c)/270A, etc. As against, no any Penalty per se, is applicable for taxation u/s 115BBC As such, forming 'reasons' for one phenomenon, and taxing the same for some different phenomenon, is completely conflicting. Learned AO is incorrect is starting the 147 proceedings for S. 68, continuing the same for S. 68; and concluding the matter for S. 115BBC