DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

68,211 /-. iii. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in interpreting the words “so arranged” used in section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 in respect of share capital issued by the appellant company in spite of various details and case laws of Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Bombay High Court and other high courts submitted from time to time. Further, the copies of which are given in Paper Book filed with

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

68 adopted by the AO, which was ordained by the notice u/s 250 dated 16.11.2024 by resorting to the provisions of section 251(1)(a), has not been challenged by the appellant in the reply submitted on 10.12.2024. Moreover, the shifting cannot be classified as a conflicting approach, while the AO has also touched upon this issue in para

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

68 adopted by the AO, which was ordained by the notice u/s 250 dated 16.11.2024 by resorting to the provisions of section 251(1)(a), has not been challenged by the appellant in the reply submitted on 10.12.2024. Moreover, the shifting cannot be classified as a conflicting approach, while the AO has also touched upon this issue in para

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

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

68 adopted by the AO, which was ordained by the notice u/s 250 dated 16.11.2024 by resorting to the provisions of section 251(1)(a), has not been challenged by the appellant in the reply submitted on 10.12.2024. Moreover, the shifting cannot be classified as a conflicting approach, while the AO has also touched upon this issue in para

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

211 ITR 141 (Madras)]\n2. CIT v. Grahalakshmi & Co. [1999] 240 ITR 952 (Madras)]\nApproving [1982] 2 ITD 420 (Madras)]\n3. CIT v. Dexan Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd. -[(1995) 214 ITR 576 (AP)]\n4. CIT v. Intraven Pharmaceuticals (P.) Ltd.- [(1995) 219 ITR 225\n(AP)]\n5. CIT v. Prithivi Fire Works Industries [(1999) 239 ITR 230\n(Madras

G AND S ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 68 of the Act is unwarranted, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the Act and facts prevailing in the case. The addition so made be deleted. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect 2 M/s G and S Associates 2 Without prejudice to Ground no. 1 and on the facts and circumstances prevailing

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

211 0.00% 0.00% USA 6 3 Goodyear 4,68,594 - - 4,68,594 22,609 33,235 - 22,609 - - 5,24,438 4.31% 4.82% Singapore 4 Goodyear 79,837 3,992 5,868 89,697 - - - 3,992 - - 86,697 4.45% 5.00% Thailand 5 Others 9,30,890 - - 9,30,890 - - - - - - 9,30,890 0.00% 0.00% Total

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURNAGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

211 0.00% 0.00% USA 6 3 Goodyear 4,68,594 - - 4,68,594 22,609 33,235 - 22,609 - - 5,24,438 4.31% 4.82% Singapore 4 Goodyear 79,837 3,992 5,868 89,697 - - - 3,992 - - 86,697 4.45% 5.00% Thailand 5 Others 9,30,890 - - 9,30,890 - - - - - - 9,30,890 0.00% 0.00% Total

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DHARIYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1440/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Pune.

211/-, required to be treated as deemed income under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was vide letter dated 13.1.2015, directed to show cause but why the figure of Rs.2,93,26,224/- by invoking the provisions of clause (e) of sub section 2(22) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 be not added

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 54F of the Act for the following reasons: A. Referring to the legal expenditure of Rs.2,68,500/-, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said amount was paid for (i) title search (ii) property consultancy (iii) legal consultancy. All these were incurred in connection with the investment of capital gains in the residential bungalow located

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

211 in all, the persons who undertook this undertaking are entitled to the benefit of Section 80IB(10) of the Act in proportion to the share to which they are entitled to in the built up area. 9. In that view of the matter, the contention of the revenue that the assessee did not undertake any developmental or building

SHRI GANESH SSK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. D.C.I.T, AHMEDNAGAR, CIRCLE-AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

68 & 78/PUN/2024, order dated 16.05.2024 and considering the CBDT circular no.14 of 2023 dated 27.07.2023 and the provisions of section 155(19) of the Act. AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 3.2 As regards the sale of sugar to its members by the assessee at concessional rate is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC partly

SHRI GANESH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KHARKHANA LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DCIT AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

68 & 78/PUN/2024, order dated\n16.05.2024 and considering the CBDT circular no.14 of 2023 dated\n27.07.2023 and the provisions of section 155(19) of the Act.\nITA Nos.119/PUN/2025 and 2510, 2511 & 2512/PUN/2024,\nAYs 2009-10 and 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14-\n3.2 As regards the sale of sugar to its members by the assessee at\nconcessional rate is concerned

SHRI GANESH SSK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. D.C.I.T, AHMEDNAGAR, CIRCLE-AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

68 & 78/PUN/2024, order dated\n16.05.2024 and considering the CBDT circular no.14 of 2023 dated\n27.07.2023 and the provisions of section 155(19) of the Act.\n3\nITA Nos.119/PUN/2025 and 2510, 2511 & 2512/PUN/2024,\nAYs 2009-10 and 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14\n3.2 As regards the sale of sugar to its members by the assessee at\nconcessional rate

SHRI GANESH SSK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. D.C.I.T, AHMEDNAGAR, CIRCLE-AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

68 & 78/PUN/2024, order dated\n16.05.2024 and considering the CBDT circular no.14 of 2023 dated\n27.07.2023 and the provisions of section 155(19) of the Act.\n\n3\nITA Nos.119/PUN/2025 and 2510, 2511 & 2512/PUN/2024,\nAYs 2009-10 and 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14\n\n3.2 As regards the sale of sugar to its members by the assessee at\nconcessional

UNIVERSAL REALTY,PUNE, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SWARGATE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.811/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

211/-. The Appellant has entered into the Joint Development Agreement on December 27, 2017. However, due some disputes the said project is not yet executed. The Appellant has only paid advance for conducting the Joint Development Agreement which was paid through Capital Introduction of Partners. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the addition made vide the order framed under section

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

68,12,295/- the net income over the expenditure was arrived at Rs.42,98,82,657/-. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) had issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking to justify the payment made to trustees, being interested persons in view of the provisions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner, Pune have provided clear guidelines on the matter. Submission of ld.AR : 3. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted that this issue is already covered by the decision