M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

145 crores, to which profit attributable to assessee which was equal to comparables profit was added. The said table is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: A.Y. Combined Profit % of Profit Profit AE’s Share Residual Profit Anagha’s Total of Anagha and earned by Attributable 3% allocated to Profit AE’s the to the Anagha Pharma Comparab Anagha

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

145 crores, to which profit attributable to assessee which was equal to comparables profit was added. The said table is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: A.Y. Combined Profit % of Profit Profit AE’s Share Residual Profit Anagha’s Total of Anagha and earned by Attributable 3% allocated to Profit AE’s the to the Anagha Pharma Comparab Anagha

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

145 crores, to which profit attributable to assessee which was equal to comparables profit was added. The said table is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: A.Y. Combined Profit % of Profit Profit AE’s Share Residual Profit Anagha’s Total of Anagha and earned by Attributable 3% allocated to Profit AE’s the to the Anagha Pharma Comparab Anagha

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

145 crores, to which profit attributable to assessee which was equal to comparables profit was added. The said table is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: A.Y. Combined Profit % of Profit Profit AE’s Share Residual Profit Anagha’s Total of Anagha and earned by Attributable 3% allocated to Profit AE’s the to the Anagha Pharma Comparab Anagha

M/S. EATON INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.536/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Eaton Industrial Systems Pvt. Ltd., 145, Off Mumbai Pune Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pimpri, Pune – 411018 …. Pan: Aabce4955C Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

145, Off Mumbai Pune Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pimpri, Pune – 411018 …. PAN: AABCE4955C Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Vishal Kalra प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख / घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 04.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 12.04.2018 आदेश / ORDER

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

3 CIT Vs Nipun Builders and 11 to 25 Where assessee failed to prove Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2013) identity and capacity of subscriber 30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi) companies to pay share application money, amount so received was liable to be taxed under section 68 4 CIT Vs Nova Promoters and 26 to 66 Amount received by from Finlease

M/S. K.G.AGRO PROCESSOR PVT.LTD,,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, DHULE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662 & 663 /Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

section 142 &143 that A.O. may also act on “the material gathered” by him. The word “material” clearly shows that the A.O. is not fettered by the technical rules of evidence and like, and that he may act on material which may not strictly speaking be accepted evidence in a court of law. All relevant circumstances which we have

M/S. K.G.AGRO PROCESSOR PVT.LTD,,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, DHULE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662 & 663 /Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

section 142 &143 that A.O. may also act on “the material gathered” by him. The word “material” clearly shows that the A.O. is not fettered by the technical rules of evidence and like, and that he may act on material which may not strictly speaking be accepted evidence in a court of law. All relevant circumstances which we have

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

68,85,000 to 16 related parties on 359 occasions towards purchase of goods. The Department did not verify the exigencies of payments so made in cash as it was seen that on other occasion payments to these parties were made through banking channel also. Hence the exemption cited under rite 6DD of Income Tax Rules. 1962 was not applicable

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

145/- which is declared as long-term capital gain exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act by holding as non genuine and unexplained cash credit under section 68. 3

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. AMBARWADIKAR & COMPANY,, AURANGABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 2038 and 2039/PUN/2014 filed by the

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.2038 & 2039/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

section 145(3) of the Act. 12.4 After rejecting the book results for A.Y. 2010-11, I estimate the profit of the business of the appellant @13% of the business receipts before remuneration to partners or actual income returned by the appellant. The business profit for A.Y. 2010-11 @13% on contract receipts of Rs.12,99,58,419/- works

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. AMBARWADIKAR & COMPANY,, AURANGABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 2038 and 2039/PUN/2014 filed by the

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.2038 & 2039/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

section 145(3) of the Act. 12.4 After rejecting the book results for A.Y. 2010-11, I estimate the profit of the business of the appellant @13% of the business receipts before remuneration to partners or actual income returned by the appellant. The business profit for A.Y. 2010-11 @13% on contract receipts of Rs.12,99,58,419/- works

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D and levy of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE, following factors are required to be considered – • Whether nature of income is clearly explained during the survey or during assessment proceedings. • Whether income can be classified under a particular head of income based on nature so as to demonstrate that it is flowing from

SHRI PARSHWANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTH,SATARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

68 of the IT Act, the same were charged to tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 5 7. Before CIT(A), it was contended that out of the total deposits of Rs.7,20,24,836/- an amount of Rs.1,35,53,000/- in respect of 59 depositors had already been treated by the Authority

KOLHAPUR TIMBER AND FURNITURE MART,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

145/- is to be assessed as 3 ‘income from other sources’ u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and accordingly assessed the income of Rs.49,72,790/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and referred to plethora of decisions contending that it was admitted in the statement recorded during the course of survey that the source

GRUHA NAVNIRMAN DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CRICLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

3 ITA No.231/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 worthiness of the lenders is not established by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. Since assessee has failed to submit any details regarding the unsecured loan taken during the year under consideration, therefore assessee has not fulfilled the three basic limbs of section 68, i.e. identity of lender, genuineness of transaction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

145 of the Income-tax Act or illegal\nin any form. It is meant for a uniform administration of law by all the\nIncome-tax authorities in a specific situation and, therefore, validly issued\nunder section 119 of the Income-tax Act. As such, the circular would be\nbinding on the department The relevant circulars of Central Board

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

145 of the income-tax Act or illegal\nin any form. It is meant for a uniform administration of law by all the\nIncome-tax authorities in a specific situation and, therefore, validly issued\nunder section 119 of the Income-tax Act. As such, the circular would be\nbinding on the department The relevant circulars of Central Board