SHRI GANESH SSK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. D.C.I.T, AHMEDNAGAR, CIRCLE-AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

68 & 78/PUN/2024, order dated 16.05.2024 and considering the CBDT circular no.14 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 and the provisions of section 155

SHRI GANESH SSK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DCIT AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE , AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Ganesh Ssk Ltd. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle A/P Ranjangaon Khurd, Vs. Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar – 413719 Pan: Aaeas0636H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hanmant Dattatray Dhavle Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R

68 & 78/PUN/2024, order dated 16.05.2024 and the provisions of section 155(19) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 5. So far as the sugar

SHRI GANESH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KHARKHANA LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DCIT AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

68 & 78/PUN/2024, order dated\n16.05.2024 and considering the CBDT circular no.14 of 2023 dated\n27.07.2023 and the provisions of section 155

SHRI GANESH SSK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. D.C.I.T, AHMEDNAGAR, CIRCLE-AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

68 & 78/PUN/2024, order dated\n16.05.2024 and considering the CBDT circular no.14 of 2023 dated\n27.07.2023 and the provisions of section 155

SHRI GANESH SSK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. D.C.I.T, AHMEDNAGAR, CIRCLE-AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

68 & 78/PUN/2024, order dated\n16.05.2024 and considering the CBDT circular no.14 of 2023 dated\n27.07.2023 and the provisions of section 155

KRANTIAGRANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Krantiagrani Dr G D Bapu Lad The Acit, Sangli. Sahakarisakharkarkhana Ltd., V Gat No.514, Kundal S.O. S Sangli – 416309. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaak1277C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.67 & 68/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Krantiagrani Dr G D Bapu Lad The Acit, Sangli. Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., V Gat No.514, Kundal S.O. S Sangli – 416309.Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaak1277C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shubhada A Koppa – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 02/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax

68,048 /- being 50 percent of excess sugarcane price paid over SMP/FRP to the members as distribution of profit. 2) The learned AO and NFAC - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi failed to appreciate the fact that the entire sugarcane price paid to member is allowable expenditure on account of commercial expendiency considering the sugarcane price paid by private sugar

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Krantiagrani Dr G D Bapu Lad The Acit, Sangli. Sahakarisakharkarkhana Ltd., V Gat No.514, Kundal S.O. S Sangli – 416309. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaak1277C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.67 & 68/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Krantiagrani Dr G D Bapu Lad The Acit, Sangli. Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., V Gat No.514, Kundal S.O. S Sangli – 416309.Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaak1277C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shubhada A Koppa – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 02/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax

68,048 /- being 50 percent of excess sugarcane price paid over SMP/FRP to the members as distribution of profit. 2) The learned AO and NFAC - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi failed to appreciate the fact that the entire sugarcane price paid to member is allowable expenditure on account of commercial expendiency considering the sugarcane price paid by private sugar

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Krantiagrani Dr G D Bapu Lad The Acit, Sangli. Sahakarisakharkarkhana Ltd., V Gat No.514, Kundal S.O. S Sangli – 416309. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaak1277C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.67 & 68/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Krantiagrani Dr G D Bapu Lad The Acit, Sangli. Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., V Gat No.514, Kundal S.O. S Sangli – 416309.Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaak1277C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shubhada A Koppa – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 02/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax

68,048 /- being 50 percent of excess sugarcane price paid over SMP/FRP to the members as distribution of profit. 2) The learned AO and NFAC - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi failed to appreciate the fact that the entire sugarcane price paid to member is allowable expenditure on account of commercial expendiency considering the sugarcane price paid by private sugar

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

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

68 of the Act i.e. the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transaction. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the various findings given by the Assessing Officer deleted the addition, which is not correct. 24. So far as the validity of re-assessment proceedings is concerned, he submitted that the Assessing Officer

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

section 19 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 68 of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in making the addition of unsecured loans. E. As regards, the addition made on account of alleged receipt of on-money consideration in cash, as well as, the payment of alleged on-money purchase

GRI RENEWABLE INDUSTRIES S L (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GONVARRI EOLICA S L),MADRID vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE -1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.202/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 90(1) of the Act leaving no room for any separate notification for the importation. The sequitur is that that the authorities below were not justified in denying the benefit of the straight rate of tax at 10% as per the DTAA read with Portuguese DTAA and also additionally charging Surcharge and Education cess. 14 GRI Renewable Industries

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

155 taxmann.com 68 (Raipur Trib.) and that of Coordinate Bench, Agra in the case of Jagdish Arora vs. ITO reported in (2021 127 taxmann.com 728 (Agra Trib.). 10. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the assessee opposed the submissions advanced by the ld. DR taking altogether a new argument which has not been raised

SANDVIK IT SERVICES AB (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AB SANDVIK INFORMATION SYSTEMS),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNAL TAXATION), CIR-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.536/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in Sweden. It filed a return declaring total income of Rs.58,54,640/- claiming refund of 2 Sandvik

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

155 CTR 489 (SC) / 239 ITR 587 (SC). Further, the assessee referred to section 90 of the Act and pointed out that where the DTAA has been entered into with a country, then the provisions of the Act or Treaty, whichever is more beneficial shall apply. He referred to the relevant extracts of provisions relating to the royalty

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

68,000/- to the international transactions of manufacturing business in respect of the truck components unit and an adjustment of ₹ 77,78,613/- to the international transactions in respect of import of fixed assets. The Assessing Officer thereafter, passed draft assessment order dated 26.03.2013 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative

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

155 (Mad) and pointed out that the said decision was a decision after the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Indu Lata Rangwala Vs. DCIT (supra) and it has reiterated the view that tangible material is the requirement for reopening the assessment even in cases where an intimation under section

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

155 (Mad) and pointed out that the said decision was a decision after the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Indu Lata Rangwala Vs. DCIT (supra) and it has reiterated the view that tangible material is the requirement for reopening the assessment even in cases where an intimation under section

SKODA AUTO [ I ] P.LTD,AURANGABAD vs. ACIT, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 144C of the Act. The attempts of making correction by issue of letters/notices, the Assessing Officer made a mistake of not withdrawing original demand notices and penalty notices. We also perused the written note along with discussed case laws furnished by the assessee in the Court. On finding the relevant of the same, we proceed to extract

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 74 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) accorded his imprimatur to the view canvassed by the AO. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. ICSL got amalgamated with the assessee company w.e.f. 01-04-2012. A copy of the Scheme of arrangement, as approved by the Hon’ble High