RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

6(g)... last 3 lines... ...substantiate any of the sources of the claimed donations during any of the above financial years... The assessee………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………… Thus the assessee could not prove the source of the claimed donations credited in the books of account. Page-12-Para-8... (last 3 lines) ..........................The assessee could not prove the sources of the donations received during

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

6(g)... last 3 lines... ...substantiate any of the sources of the claimed donations during any of the above financial years... The assessee………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………… Thus the assessee could not prove the source of the claimed donations credited in the books of account. Page-12-Para-8... (last 3 lines) ..........................The assessee could not prove the sources of the donations received during

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

6(g)... last 3 lines...\n...substantiate any of the sources of the claimed donations during\nthe\nabove\nfinancial\nyears...\nThe\nassessee.\nThus the assessee could\nnot prove the source of the claimed donations credited in the books\nof account.\nPage-12-Para-8... (last 3 lines)\n.The assessee could not prove the sources of the\ndonations received during

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

6(g)... last 3 lines...\n...substantiate any of the sources of the claimed donations during\nany of the above financial years... The\nassessee.\nThus the assessee could\nnot prove the source of the claimed donations credited in the books\nof account.\nPage-12-Para-8... (last 3 lines)\n.The assessee could not prove the sources of the\ndonations received

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

6(g)... last 3 lines...\n...substantiate any of the sources of the claimed donations during\nany\nof\nthe\nabove\nfinancial\nyears...\nThe\nassessee.\nThus the assessee could\nnot prove the source of the claimed donations credited in the books\nof account.\nPage-12-Para-8... (last 3 lines)\n.The assessee could not prove the sources of the\ndonations received

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

6) Further the appellant co. is a retail business of computers and peripherals which the Director’s are running it. The Directors are having individual proprietorship concerns. Thus there is no question of land being cultivated by Directors which is situated at Dhule more than 200 kms away from Nashik. 7) The Assessing Officer after considering the entire source

V E L SOFTWARE LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

6. We find the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has rendered numerous judgments to the effect that the assessee has to prove the identity, credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction. To illustrate, we would like to quote some of the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court infra. In the case of Tulip Engineering

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

6 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. However, the applicability of Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act was never under consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. He further pointed out that in the case before the Hon’ble High Court, clarificatory nature of amendments to section

BHUSHAN UTTAMRAO BACHHAV,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.503/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

section 68 of the Act. 6. In response, the assessee submitted confirmation letters in most of the cases and also the affidavits in all cases confirming the said payment of Rs.4 lakh each in cash to the assessee. Lack of credit worthiness and genuineness of the transactions etc. were scrupulously examined by the AO. Unsatisfied with the explanation

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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SKODA AUTO A.S.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.787/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

68,15,447/-; and FTS from Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. of ₹ 18,31,86,736/-, totaling ₹ 44,47,30,186/-. The Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee was tax resident of Czech Republic, its taxability was governed by the provisions of DTAA between India and Czech Republic or the provisions of the Income Tax Act, whichever were more beneficial

RATHOD JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

195 (MAD) 17 e. Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of Anita Sanjay Agarwal and others in ITA No. 2622 to 2624 f. Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of Full Moon Housing Private Limited vs The DCIT ITA No.289/PUN/2016 3. The amount offered as a sale cannot be treated as deemed Income under section 68

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

68 does not apply. e) No sum is credited or no proof is found by the Assessing Officer of payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- and made the addition only on the basis of document impounded which is nothing but a dumb document. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

68 does not apply. e) No sum is credited or no proof is found by the Assessing Officer of payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- and made the addition only on the basis of document impounded which is nothing but a dumb document. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

68 does not apply. e) No sum is credited or no proof is found by the Assessing Officer of payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- and made the addition only on the basis of document impounded which is nothing but a dumb document. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

68- unexplained cash credits, being unsecured loans by concluding that 2 ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] appellant has failed to discharge its primary onus, given an opportunity your appellant is in position to provide all the details of such loan amount credited in bank account and therefore the entire addition in unwarranted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances