KAILASWASI NARAYAN ALIAS BAPU PATIL SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

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

68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) changed this decision of the A. O. and abruptly held the provisions of S. 115BBC attracted being anonymous donations. The Ld. CIT(A) was under bounden duty to issue show cause notice to the assessee trust and also should have called for Remand Report from the A. O. with a view

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE vs. M/S SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (TRUST), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

193. (iii) Foundation for Social Care, 37 taxmann.com 389. (iv) Manockjee Cowasjee Petit Charities, 21 taxmann.com 456. Thus, it is submitted that there is no violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act on account of rent free accommodation provided to Shri Maruti N. Navale alleged by the Assessing Officer. 27 M/s. Sinhagad Technical Education Society As regards

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

section 68 of the Act on the amount of Rs.32.50 lakhs. Same is the reasons given by the AO when an amount of Rs.46 lakhs is added in the A.Y. 2009-10 and Rs.68,10,000/- in the A.Y.2010-11 respectively. 4.2 However, in the First Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that some of its creditors also contributed towards

THE UGAR SUGAR WORKS LTD,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SANGLI

68,07,161/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The brief factual matrix leading to the addition of book profits is as under :- sale of sugar. During the course of previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee company purchased sugarcane at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per MT. The same was debited

THE UGAR SUGAR WORKS LTD,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SANGLI

68,07,161/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The brief factual matrix leading to the addition of book profits is as under :- sale of sugar. During the course of previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee company purchased sugarcane at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per MT. The same was debited

THE UGAR SUGAR WORKS LTD,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SANGLI

68,07,161/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The brief factual matrix leading to the addition of book profits is as under :- sale of sugar. During the course of previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee company purchased sugarcane at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per MT. The same was debited

BHASKAR RAGHUNATH SHELKE,,SHIRDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.268/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mr. Bhaskar Raghunath Shelke, Biregaon Ban, Shelke Wasti, Appellant Shridi – 423109. Pan : Dddps3334G.

193/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated dt.13.10.2016 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-2/ITO Wd-2/AN/485/2016-17) dismissed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : “1. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

68,33,360/-. A company, namely, Begu Diesel Start Systems Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called `the Indian company‘) was incorporated on 16.10.1996. The assessee and a Germany company started business pursuant to the Joint venture agreement dated 16.12.1996. and CO No.11/PUN/2022 The assessee, along with his wife, held 51% shares in the Indian company, while the remaining 49% held by BorgWarner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

68,33,360/-. A company, namely, Begu Diesel Start Systems Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called `the Indian company‘) was incorporated on 16.10.1996. The assessee and a Germany company started business pursuant to the Joint venture agreement dated 16.12.1996. and CO No.11/PUN/2022 The assessee, along with his wife, held 51% shares in the Indian company, while the remaining 49% held by BorgWarner

FRANCOIS COMPRESSOR INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2504/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ………. अपीलाथ" / Francois Compressor India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.147/1(New), Lavale Road, Appellant Pirangut, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune – 412115. Pan : Aabcf0496K. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (2), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah. Revenue By : Shri Amol Kamat. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dt.31.08.2017 Passed Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under : The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Sale

68,678 CUP Commercial Belgium Borrowings (USD) Moteurs et-Francois, 10 External 1,65,18,000 CUP Commercial Belguim Borrowings (USD) 34,90,03,176 Total The assessee company sought to justify that the above international transactions are undertaken at Arms Length Price (ALP). For this purpose, the assessee company also submitted a TP Study Report. On noticing the above

WIKA INSTRUMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2767/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Wika Instruments India V The Dcit, Private Limited, S. Circle-12, Pune. Hi-Cliff Industrial Estate, Kesnand, Pune – 412207. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacw2665A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act, Dated 25.10.2024 To Give Effect To The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Passed U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 26.09.2024 Emanating From Draft Assessment Order Under Section 144C(1) Of

section 144C(11) of the Act. 3. Ground 3: Erroneous denial of prepaid tax credit pertaining to the Amalgamating Entity 3.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP and Ld. AO has erred in denying credit of prepaid taxes amounting to INR 1,35,68,223 related to the amalgamating entity, Switzer