M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

68 and 69 to 69D. Since, I have already upheld that the additional income corresponding to excess stock is taxable u/s 69B of the Act, therefore, as per provisions of section 115BBE(2), no deduction for this amount can be allowed to the appellant in any assessment year. Accordingly, the contention raised by the appellant is rejected. The grounds

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

206\n100%\n141,579,887\n100%\n717,591,392\n1,082,764,642\n43%\n749,652,977\n3,270,878,471\n3,404.802.531\n3,444\n381,696\n212,916\n598,057\n2,562\n13,429\n85,306,853\n21,300\n37,291\n5,976\n453,191\n21,300\n755,620\n5,587,982\n825,311,495\n314

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. JHAVERI FLEXO INDIA PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

section 69C made on account of unexplained purchases. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts by deleting the addition of Rs. 3,45,68,794/- made on account of additional income declared during the search action. 4. The appellant craves

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

M/S. SHIVAM CONSTRUCTION CO,,PANVEL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

Appeals are dismissed, accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.233 & 234/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

206 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant PAN : AAEFM8600L बनधम / V/s. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent DCIT, Panvel Circle Assessee by : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s twin appeals for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011- 12 arise against

M/S. SHIVAM CONSTRUCTION CO,,PANVEL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

Appeals are dismissed, accordingly

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.233 & 234/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

206 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant PAN : AAEFM8600L बनधम / V/s. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent DCIT, Panvel Circle Assessee by : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue by : Shri S. P. Walimbe सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM : 1. These assessee’s twin appeals for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011- 12 arise against

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

206, wherein section 14 of the Copy Right Act has been referred to, which explains the meaning of copyright and vide paras 20 and 21, the issue has been explained and decided in favour of assessee and it has been held that the issue has to be decided in the light of definition of ‘royalty’, as contained in DTAA

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

206, wherein section 14 of the Copy Right Act has been referred to, which explains the meaning of copyright and vide paras 20 and 21, the issue has been explained and decided in favour of assessee and it has been held that the issue has to be decided in the light of definition of ‘royalty’, as contained in DTAA

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

206, wherein section 14 of the Copy Right Act has been referred to, which explains the meaning of copyright and vide paras 20 and 21, the issue has been explained and decided in favour of assessee and it has been held that the issue has to be decided in the light of definition of ‘royalty’, as contained in DTAA

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

206, wherein section 14 of the Copy Right Act has been referred to, which explains the meaning of copyright and vide paras 20 and 21, the issue has been explained and decided in favour of assessee and it has been held that the issue has to be decided in the light of definition of ‘royalty’, as contained in DTAA

RUHEENA BEGUM SHAIKH AMIR,,JALNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE,, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

68 read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act). 3. At the very outset, the ld. A.R submitted that there is a delay of 90 days. The period is covered in assessee’s case by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation

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

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

206 pages and also relied\non the following decisions :\n1. Shri Jairam Education Society Vs. PCIT – ITA Nos.90 & 548/Ind/2019,\ndated 13.10.2021\n2. CIT (Central) Vs. Shikshan Prasarak JMandali (2017) 86 taxmjann.com 7\n(Bombay)\n3. CIT(Exemptions), Pune Vs. Audyogik Shikshan Mandal (2019) 101\ntaxmann.com 247 (Bombay)\n4. Maa Jagat Janani Seva Trust Vs. CIT(E) – ITA No.248/CTK/2023, dated\n16.07.2024

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed\nby the assessee are dismissed

section 133A(iii) clarifies beyond doubt that the\nmaterial collected and the statement recorded during the survey are not conclusive\npiece of evidence by themselves.\n15.\nReferring to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs.\nSunrise Tooling System (P.) Ltd. reported in (2014) 361 ITR 206 (Del), he\nsubmitted that