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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

161. Therefore, placing purposive interpretation on the provisions of sub- section (7) of section 10AA of the Act, the purport of term “Export” cannot be different from the meaning assigned to it in SEZ Act, 2005. Furthermore, if we are to hold that in view of the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 10AA

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

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

161\n(Appellant has submitted copies of the above decisions during the\ncourse of hearing).\nIn these cases, Hon'ble Bombay High Court, after considering views of\nvarious other High Courts, has laid down that, exemption u/s_11\nought to be denied only to the extent of violative portion. Similarly,\nAppellant has referred to section 13(1) and 115BBI, wherein

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

68 33,85,80,176 14 9,02,79,805 8 4,67,15,104 7. Referring to the above, he submitted that in the subsequent submissions the assessee relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Construction vs. DCIT reported in 38 DTR 19 has explained to the Assessing Officer that

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

Section 80IA/IB of the Act.\nIt must follow that there is due application of mind by the Assessing\nOfficer to the issue raised.\nThe above observations apply on all fours to this Petition, so far as the\nRevenue's submission of no change of opinion is concerned.\n11. The further submission of Mr. Walve that in the absence

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

1,25,78,763/- Rs.4,59,040/- 2740% 9. He accordingly noted that the unsecured loans given by the loan creditors are grossly disproportionate to the annual income disclosed by them. Further, a perusal of the bank accounts of the respective creditors reveals that there were 11 unusual activities involving huge credits in the said bank accounts before the impugned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. ABHAYRAJ FATTEHRAJ CHORDIYA, C/O LAXMI OIL MIL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

1) of the Act namely the existence of an undisclosed asset of Rs.50 lakhs or more, unaccounted and unearthed during the search is not satisfied in the present case. In absence of such a foundational jurisdictional fact, the invocation of section 153C proceedings for the extended assessment years i.e. assessment years 2014-15 cannot be sustained in law. Therefore

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE vs. FERRERO INDIA PVT.LTD, PUNE

section 92F(v) of the Act and thus constitutes a transaction. Therefore, the excess expenditure incurred by the taxpayer for Brand Promotion of its AE constitutes an international transaction. The TPO observed that though taxpayer has sold the products the ultimate beneficiary is the manufacturer whose products have been sold and therefore, the brand name of the manufacturer

ASHOK HIRACHAND SHAH,PANVEL vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.812/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ashok Hirachand Shah, Assessing Officer, Plot No. 4, Mangal Bunglow, Ward – 2, Panvel Road No. 5, Sector No. 19, Vs. New Panvel, Tal.-Panvel-410206 Pan : Acdps4800M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajinkya Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of 17-12-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Denial Of Natural Justice & Proper Opportunity The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Appellant Was Denied Proper Opportunity & Natural Justice During The Assessment Proceedings. The Assessing Officer Called For Information At The Far End Of The Assessment Proceedings On 19/11/2018 & Despite The Appellant'S Authorized Representative Submitting The Details On 19/12/2018, The Ao Failed To Discuss Or Consider The Same. The Matter Ought To Have Been Remanded Back For Fresh Adjudication To Allow Proper Analysis Of The Transactions. 2. Addition Without Specifying The Section The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 1,49,05,289/- Made By The Ao Without Specifying The Section Under Which The Addition Was Made. The Non-Mention Of The Specific Section Renders The Assessment Order Bad In Law, As It Violates The Principles Of Natural Justice & Transparency In Taxation. 3. Failure To Discharge Onus Under Section 69A

1,49,05,289/- as unexplained cash deposits. 6. As per the provisions of S. 69A it is the onus of the assessee to explain money deposited in his bank account to the satisfaction of the assessing officer. The provisions of Section 69A are amongst the deeming provisions of the Act from S. 68 to S. 69D. The jurisprudence

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7