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

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

11. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, pointed out that the findings of CIT(A) at page 10 were that Explanation introduced in 2012 was clarificatory in nature and hence, was applicable to earlier years. He placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Transmission Corporation

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

11,104/-. The CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue and upheld the levy of penalty. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 14. The first aspect of the issue raised by the assessee before us is that where no satisfaction

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

11,104/-. The CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue and upheld the levy of penalty. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 14. The first aspect of the issue raised by the assessee before us is that where no satisfaction

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

11,104/-. The CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue and upheld the levy of penalty. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 14. The first aspect of the issue raised by the assessee before us is that where no satisfaction

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

11,104/-. The CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue and upheld the levy of penalty. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 14. The first aspect of the issue raised by the assessee before us is that where no satisfaction

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

11,104/-. The CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue and upheld the levy of penalty. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 14. The first aspect of the issue raised by the assessee before us is that where no satisfaction

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

11,104/-. The CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue and upheld the levy of penalty. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 14. The first aspect of the issue raised by the assessee before us is that where no satisfaction

YASHWANTRAO CHAVAN MAHARASHTRA OPEN UNIVERSITY,NASHIK vs. EXEMPTION CIRCLE,A BAD, AURANGABAD

Section 143(1) of the Act.\n7. Hence, I find no merit in the current appeal and, as a result, dismiss the\nappeal.\"\n5.\nAggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A), the assessee is in\nappeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:\n1)\nThe Ld. CPC erred in (CIT-A in confirming) making adjustment

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

11 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the ground raised by the Revenue is infructuous and deserves to be dismissed. 64. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered

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

11 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the ground raised by the Revenue is infructuous and deserves to be dismissed. 64. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered

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

11 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the ground raised by the Revenue is infructuous and deserves to be dismissed. 64. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered

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

11 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the ground raised by the Revenue is infructuous and deserves to be dismissed. 64. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered

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

11 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the ground raised by the Revenue is infructuous and deserves to be dismissed. 64. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered

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

11 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the ground raised by the Revenue is infructuous and deserves to be dismissed. 64. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered

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

11. The next plea of assessee was that it was reimbursement of expenses and not taxable. The CIT(A) referred to Circular No.715 of CBDT, dated 08.08.1995 and held that the same as not correct. The CIT(A) held that the assessee should have deducted tax at source on the payments made for reimbursement of payments made for acquiring software

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

11. The next plea of assessee was that it was reimbursement of expenses and not taxable. The CIT(A) referred to Circular No.715 of CBDT, dated 08.08.1995 and held that the same as not correct. The CIT(A) held that the assessee should have deducted tax at source on the payments made for reimbursement of payments made for acquiring software