SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

172/- claimed U/s 10(38) of the Act. After perusing the records, I find that in the instant case the investment in shares made by the assessee reveals that he has not been dealing in shares on a regular basis and the entries of LTCG have also been taken by other members of the assessee and the purchase of these

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 68 and 69C of the IT Act. Ld. DR also submitted before the Bench that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC) has accepted 100% addition of bogus purchases. Ld. DR also submitted before the Bench that Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 68 and 69C of the IT Act. Ld. DR also submitted before the Bench that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC) has accepted 100% addition of bogus purchases. Ld. DR also submitted before the Bench that Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while making addition. 9. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the AO, who has reopened the assessment based on the report of the Investment Wing, without further Inquiry or verifying the credentials. 3 Kalavathi Devi Sharma 10. Any other ground which the Assessee may urge either before

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ JUGALKISHOR GIRDHARILAL,, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68,06,250/-. The assessee declared Long Term Capital Gain on sale of land Rs.66,33,750/- (1/3rd share) after claiming exemption u/s. 54B Rs.53,45,000/-. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 54B as no agricultural activities were carried out by the assessee

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ SATYANARAYAN GIRDHARILAL,, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68,06,250/-. The assessee declared Long Term Capital Gain on sale of land Rs.66,33,750/- (1/3rd share) after claiming exemption u/s. 54B Rs.53,45,000/-. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 54B as no agricultural activities were carried out by the assessee

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ MURLIDHAR GIRDHARILAL, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68,06,250/-. The assessee declared Long Term Capital Gain on sale of land Rs.66,33,750/- (1/3rd share) after claiming exemption u/s. 54B Rs.53,45,000/-. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 54B as no agricultural activities were carried out by the assessee

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 वष"

4. The appellant craves to amend the grounds of the appeal stated above and when need for doing so may arise." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-trust has shown donation of Rs. 68,50,000 from BBT, Mumbai. The Assessing Officer computed the assessment on total income of Rs. 68,70,000 rejecting

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

4, it is reiterated that except for the rights expressly granted, the End User License transfers to Deere & Co, no right, title or interest in the software, the documentation, or any copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title

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

4, it is reiterated that except for the rights expressly granted, the End User License transfers to Deere & Co, no right, title or interest in the software, the documentation, or any copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title

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

4, it is reiterated that except for the rights expressly granted, the End User License transfers to Deere & Co, no right, title or interest in the software, the documentation, or any copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title

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

4, it is reiterated that except for the rights expressly granted, the End User License transfers to Deere & Co, no right, title or interest in the software, the documentation, or any copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

172/- 8,77,708/- - - 1,81,68,880/- 2010-11 1,81,68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

172/- 8,77,708/- - - 1,81,68,880/- 2010-11 1,81,68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

172/- 8,77,708/- - - 1,81,68,880/- 2010-11 1,81,68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

172/- 8,77,708/- - - 1,81,68,880/- 2010-11 1,81,68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

172/- 8,77,708/- - - 1,81,68,880/- 2010-11 1,81,68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

172/- 8,77,708/- - - 1,81,68,880/- 2010-11 1,81,68,880/- 20,00,000/- 93,18,439/- 1,03,441/- 1,07,47,000/- 2011-12 1,07,47,000/- - 1,07,46,255/- 745/- - 8.1 The ld. AR submitted that the practice of writing off bad debts followed by the assessee is in consonance with amended