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

D Road, Dapodi, services Pune - 411012 10. The Notes to this effect was also given in Form No.3CEB. The original assessment in the case was completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. The grievance of the Department in this regard is that in the absence of any assessment being completed under section

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

D Road, Dapodi, services Pune - 411012 10. The Notes to this effect was also given in Form No.3CEB. The original assessment in the case was completed by issue of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. The grievance of the Department in this regard is that in the absence of any assessment being completed under section

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

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

68,480/-.\n2)\nThe Ld. CPC and Ld. CIT-A ought to have appreciated the fact that,\namount of Rs.90,70,20,511/- as accumulated by the University has been\nrightly utilized by it before 31 March 2023 and therefore, no adjustment\nshould be made in this regard.\n3)\nThe Ld. CPC and Ld. CIT-A ought to have appreciated

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

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

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 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

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

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