DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

156 taxmann.com 605 (Bom), he submitted that\nthe Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the Assessing\nOfficer made an addition in respect of sale proceeds of shares as unexplained cash\ncredit under section 68

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

68 of the Act. iii) The AO, upon verification of the relevant details/documents, shall record his clear findings as to the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the respective creditors, in respect of the transactions under consideration. 10. Aggrieved with such order of the PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

TARA CONSTRUCTIONS ,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 68 of the Act is amended to provide that the nature and source of any sum, whether in form of loan or borrowing, or any other (lability credited in the books of an assessee shall be treated as explained only if the source of funds is also explained in the hands of the creditor or entry provider

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 r.w.s. 115BBE; and (d) not allowing set off of profit on trading in derivatives against brought forward losses. 3. That the order dated 15.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 r.w.s. 115BBE; and (d) not allowing set off of profit on trading in derivatives against brought forward losses. 3. That the order dated 15.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

156 of the Act is Rs.9,65,15,083/- and Rs.9,68,69,836/-, respectively. The ld. AR argued that the approving authority Addl. CIT has to verify everything in detail while giving approval u/s. 153D of the Act relating to section

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAGNA INTERNATIONAL INC.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2098/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

156 of the Act. The CIT(A) observed that hence the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer was final assessment order and not draft assessment order. The CIT(A) was of the view that the Assessing Officer ought to have passed draft assessment order first, in accordance with provisions of section 144C(1) of the Act, before passing final

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

156 passed by the Ld. AO which is contrary\nto the CBDT Circular No. 19 /2019 dated 14.08.2019.\n2.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nassessment order passed deserves to be quashed.\n3. LIBERTY\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, delete or substitute\nany of the above grounds of appeal.”\n10. Since

SHREE ADINATH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3035 To 3038/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1998-99 To 2001-02

68,930 when the cane was purchased at different prices as noted by AO himself at page 2 of his order. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) did not even allow deduction under clause 5A which the CIT(A)-V had accepted in Shree Dnyaneshwar pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SHREE ADINATH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3035 To 3038/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1998-99 To 2001-02

68,930 when the cane was purchased at different prices as noted by AO himself at page 2 of his order. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) did not even allow deduction under clause 5A which the CIT(A)-V had accepted in Shree Dnyaneshwar pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SHREE ADINATH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3035 To 3038/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1998-99 To 2001-02

68,930 when the cane was purchased at different prices as noted by AO himself at page 2 of his order. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) did not even allow deduction under clause 5A which the CIT(A)-V had accepted in Shree Dnyaneshwar pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SHREE ADINATH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3035 To 3038/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1998-99 To 2001-02

68,930 when the cane was purchased at different prices as noted by AO himself at page 2 of his order. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) did not even allow deduction under clause 5A which the CIT(A)-V had accepted in Shree Dnyaneshwar pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 shall be made within one month from the end of the month in which the order has been received. 5. The proceedings for the penalty has not been initiated under the circumstances referred in section 270A(9) of the Act. 5.4 In the present case, no tax and interest demand payable is required to be paid

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

156 and u/s. 271(1)(c) has withdrawn the said notices. The failure of Assessing Officer to adhere mandatory requirement of section 144C in not first passing the Draft Assessment Order invalidates the final assessment order and subsequent the proceedings arising there from. In catena of judgments by Hon‟ble High Courts it has been held that passing

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

156. We must look into the meaning of the word "copyright" as given in the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 14 of this Act defines "Copyright" as "the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorize the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

156. We must look into the meaning of the word "copyright" as given in the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 14 of this Act defines "Copyright" as "the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorize the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof

TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

156. We must look into the meaning of the word "copyright" as given in the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 14 of this Act defines "Copyright" as "the exclusive right subject to the provisions of this Act, to do or authorize the doing of any of the following acts in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof