ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

2-3 years. On being questioned by the Assessing Officer, the\nassessee has merely stated that he was doing this on the advice of broker and\nmarket sentiment.\n\n18. Referring to the movement of shares price of M/s PFIL, he submitted that\nthe price of this company rose from Rs.14.28 in April 2010 to Rs.825/- in May,\n2014

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

2-3 years. On being questioned by the Assessing Officer, the\nassessee has merely stated that he was doing this on the advice of broker and\nmarket sentiment.\n\n18. Referring to the movement of shares price of M/s PFIL, he submitted that\nthe price of this company rose from Rs.14.28 in April 2010 to Rs.825/- in May,\n2014

SHREE TULJABHAVANI NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 , PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.254/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Tuljabhavani Nagari The Principal Commissioner Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Vs Of Income Tax - 5, Pune. 17/04, 103, Shri Tuljibhavani Plaza Mangalnagar, Wakad Road, Thergaon, Pune. Pan: Aadas 9902 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income-Tax-5, Pune’S, Order Dated 08.01.2019For The Assessment Year 2014-15, Involving Proceedings Under Section 263(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Passing The Order Which Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Same May Please Be Cancelled. 2. Pr.Cit Has Erred In Alleging That Order U/S 143(3) Passed By Assessing Officer Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. Appellant Prays To Cancel The Same.

220 (Pune - Trib.)[23-09-2020], the Ld.Co-ordinate Bench held as under: Quote, “ 4. The short point of view of the ld. Pr.CIT is that interest earned from co-operative banks cannot be covered under clause (d) of sub-clause (2) of section 80P. Section 80P(1) provides that: 'Where, in the case of an assessee being

SPAN OVERSEAS P LTD,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.409/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Span Overseas Private Limited, The Principal Office No.5, Amar Avinash Vs Commissioner Of Income Corporate City 11, Bund Garden Tax-3, Pune. Road, Pune – 411006. Pan: Aabcs 4214 N Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 Dated 30.03.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 13.11.2019 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Span Overseas Private Limited ('The Appellant') Objects To The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Dated March 30, 2022 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Pune - 3 ('Pr. Cit) For The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Amongst Other Grounds: Span Overseas P. Ltd.,[A]

68 to 73 of the paper book. The Ld.AR invited our attention to page 77 to 83 of the paper book. The Ld.AR explained that assessee had filed copy of the Challan at page 79 of Paper book to explain the payment made. At page 78 of the paper book was a table showing amounts paid and the year under

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

2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Reference was made to the CBDT’s Circular issued and also several decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. in ITA No.2808 of 2005, judgment dated 15.10.2011 and the contentions of assessee were rejected and the payment received

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURAVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT, MOHOL

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

68 of the Paper Book with sample copies of FDs at pages 69 to 75 of the Paper Book. The claim of the assessee before us is that it was engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members, out of loan received from its members itself. The surplus amount which was on account of amount received from

MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

68 of the Paper Book with sample copies of FDs at pages 69 to 75 of the Paper Book. The claim of the assessee before us is that it was engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members, out of loan received from its members itself. The surplus amount which was on account of amount received from

MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

68 of the Paper Book with sample copies of FDs at pages 69 to 75 of the Paper Book. The claim of the assessee before us is that it was engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members, out of loan received from its members itself. The surplus amount which was on account of amount received from

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURAVATHA SASTHA MARYADIT, MOHOL

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

68 of the Paper Book with sample copies of FDs at pages 69 to 75 of the Paper Book. The claim of the assessee before us is that it was engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members, out of loan received from its members itself. The surplus amount which was on account of amount received from

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVAGHA SANSTHA MARYADIT, MOHOL

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

68 of the Paper Book with sample copies of FDs at pages 69 to 75 of the Paper Book. The claim of the assessee before us is that it was engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members, out of loan received from its members itself. The surplus amount which was on account of amount received from

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT , MOHOL

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

68 of the Paper Book with sample copies of FDs at pages 69 to 75 of the Paper Book. The claim of the assessee before us is that it was engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members, out of loan received from its members itself. The surplus amount which was on account of amount received from

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

68,900/-, whereas on Page 145 of dairy A-6, total payment found only at Rs.24,83,292/-. Thus, declaration was insisted of difference amount at Rs.63,85,608/-and obtained. (d) Labour charges found recorded at Rs.2,16,14,000/-, whereas on Page 147-149 of dairy A-6, total payment found only at Rs.89,10,871/-. Thus, declaration

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. AKASH FARMS PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1482/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Akash Farms Llp, Nath House, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aadca3303J Revenue By : Smt. Shabana Parveen Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 1, Aurangabad Dated 29.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Passing The Order Both On The Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Failing To Give To The A.O. Reasonable Opportunity Required To Be Given To The A.O. As Per Rule 46A(3) As Only Seven Days Were Given To The A.O. For Examining & Rebutting The Considerable Additional Evidence Produced By The Assessee & For Submitting The Remand Report & The Order Was Passed By Cit(A) On The Very Next Day After The Remand Report Was Due. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Not Upholding The Addition Of Rs.42608528/- In Light Of The Decision By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Pcit Vs Nra Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (Reported In 103 Taxmann.Com 48) As In The Instant Case The Investor Company Was In Loss Of Rs.65,459/- & Had Negative Figures Of Reserve & Surplus Of Rs.3.60 Crores.

2 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A)-1 erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,26,08,528/- as the assessee had failed to discharge the primary onus contemplated by section 68 of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A), Aurangabad be quashed and that

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

2,68,200, Employers Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs. 43,55,286, Employers Contribution to ESIC of Rs. 1,35,555 and Bonus of 5,07,95,670, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Rs. 8. The learned ADIT-CPC has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been reported as paid on or before

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

2,68,200, Employers Contribution to Provident Fund of Rs. 43,55,286, Employers Contribution to ESIC of Rs. 1,35,555 and Bonus of 5,07,95,670, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Rs. 8. The learned ADIT-CPC has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been reported as paid on or before

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

220 2,13,79,500 18,502\n21/11/2015 Shah\n1201\n24/11/2016\nAdish Shantilal B-\nSolanki\n1701\n1097.84\n67,55,000\n67,55,000 86,00,000\n7,834 60,90,820 5,548 1,53,55,000 13,987\n31/08/2018\nAshok Bharati\nGoswami\nB-\n1201\n1021.17

TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

68 (Del), DCIT Vs. Ericsson A.B. (2012) 343 ITR 470 (Del), Tata Consultancy Services State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)271 ITR 401 (SC), Dassault Systems KK, In Re (2010) 229 CTR 105 (AAR), Geoquast Systems BV, Inre (2010) 327 ITR 1 (AAR), DDIT Vs. Reliane Industries Ltd. (2011) 43 SOT 506 (Mumbai), ITAT. 8. On the receipt of the above

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.

2 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue."(page 281) The High Court then followed its own judgment in Ericsson A.B. (supra), deciding the case in favour of the assessee. 112. In DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd. [2013] 39 taxmann.com 88/[2014] 220 Taxman 273 (Delhi) ["Infrasoft"],43 a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi