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

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

199 (Bangalore – Trib.) and in the case of Secondment of skilled personnel for rendering services, amount received was taxable in the hands of overseas company and he stated that in such scenario, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source. When the hearing was commenced on the next day, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue stressed that

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

199 (Bangalore – Trib.) and in the case of Secondment of skilled personnel for rendering services, amount received was taxable in the hands of overseas company and he stated that in such scenario, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source. When the hearing was commenced on the next day, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue stressed that

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

199 (Bangalore – Trib.) and in the case of Secondment of skilled personnel for rendering services, amount received was taxable in the hands of overseas company and he stated that in such scenario, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source. When the hearing was commenced on the next day, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue stressed that

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

199 (Bangalore – Trib.) and in the case of Secondment of skilled personnel for rendering services, amount received was taxable in the hands of overseas company and he stated that in such scenario, the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source. When the hearing was commenced on the next day, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue stressed that

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

68,26,650/-.” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal(s) before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging both the orders dated 08.03.2023 and 03.07.2023 passed under section 143(3) and section 154 of the Act respectively. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

68,26,650/-.” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal(s) before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging both the orders dated 08.03.2023 and 03.07.2023 passed under section 143(3) and section 154 of the Act respectively. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA

LEKHAKOSH KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PR. CIT, PUNE-4, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

199/- u/s 80P. The contention raised by the assessee are examined with reference to assessment record and it is found that Assessing officer has arrived at decision without properly examining the eligibility of assessee to claim deduction u/s 80P of the Act. As per provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i), the Society is required to substantiate the principle

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

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

199 and Allahabad High Court in the case of Oxford Academy for\nCareer Development v. Chief CIT [20091.315 ITR 382\n29. All the three High Courts after examining the issue, in the light of the\nobject of Section 12A of the Act and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act\nheld that the order of the CIT passed

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.

68 taxmann.com 97, Bharati Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. 326 ITR 477 (AAR) and Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty Ltd., In Re: (2012) 343 ITR 1 (AAR). We, therefore, hold that software maintenance fees, consultancy services fees and training services fees cannot be held to be “Fees for Technical services”. Thus, grounds of appeal no. 2 to 5 stands allowed

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.

68 taxmann.com 97, Bharati Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. 326 ITR 477 (AAR) and Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty Ltd., In Re: (2012) 343 ITR 1 (AAR). We, therefore, hold that software maintenance fees, consultancy services fees and training services fees cannot be held to be “Fees for Technical services”. Thus, grounds of appeal no. 2 to 5 stands allowed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

199 ITR 67. It was held by the Supreme Court that the Gujarat High Court was right in saying that in order to attract taxability under Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part

SIDHESH MOHAN RAIKAR,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.294/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

199 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and non- applicability of Rule 37BA(2) of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee

M/S. EATON POWER QUALITY PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

2 Operations review September 4, 2007 Update that the Encore services Extra Data Pass did not complete successfully (Refer Page 113 to 114 of paper book) September 17, 2007 Oracle Login issues (Refer Page 126 of paper book) 3 Information Technology September 15, 2008 Encore training („IT‟) infrastructure September 09, 2008 (Refer Page 109 to 112 support services August

M/S EATON POWER QUALITY P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

2 Operations review September 4, 2007 Update that the Encore services Extra Data Pass did not complete successfully (Refer Page 113 to 114 of paper book) September 17, 2007 Oracle Login issues (Refer Page 126 of paper book) 3 Information Technology September 15, 2008 Encore training („IT‟) infrastructure September 09, 2008 (Refer Page 109 to 112 support services August

KEDAR ARVIND SARASWATE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

68,199/- to the assessee’s total income. With the result, the Assessing Officer assessed the assessee’s total income at Rs.78,23,313/- as against his returned total income of Rs.18,15,114/-. 3. The Assessing Officer on perusal of the documents filed by the assessee observed that the land sold by the assessee is urban land

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDED vs. RAKESH HUKUMCHAND AGARWAL, NANDED

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

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

2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts that the assessee had shown his total receipts of Rs.2,31,83,247/- in his RO1 which is less than his total cash deposits of Rs.2,61,10,199/-. Therefore, the said excess amount of Rs.29,26,952/- not considered and shown in his ROI for the year under consideration

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INTERLOCKING SURGEONS,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2816, 2817 & 2560/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2014-15 & 2016-17

2) Where, in the case of an association of persons or body of individuals as aforesaid [not being a case falling under sub- section (1)],— (i) the total income of any member thereof for the previous year (excluding his share from such association or body) exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to tax in the case