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

221 Taxman 14 dated 28-11-2013. 9. We further find that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P. Mohan Kala & Others 291 ITR 278 has held as under : 12 VEL Software Limited " 15 When and in what circumstances Section 68 of the Act would come into play? That a bare reading of Section 68

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

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

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

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

COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

68,50,567 6. Disallowance of Deduction, as discussed in para 5.7 16,19,905 25,63,55,143 Total Income 7,91,33,529 Rounded off. 7,91,33,530 5. From the above it is evident that the disallowance of claim of Rs.23.52 crores (rounded off) is one major addition made by the Assessing Officer rejecting the claim/alternate

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTAMT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.775/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.758/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......Cross Objector बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019

68,846/- out of the claim of excess deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act,1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee company has claimed excess deduction on revenue expenditure over and above the expenses approved by DSIR. 11. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT

DILIP JAWAHARLAL VARYANI,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.643/Pun/2025 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year:2011-12 Dilip Jawaharlal Varyani, V The Dy.Commissioner Of S.No.9/2B, Cts No.905, S Income Tax, Circle-8, Vaibhav Vihar, Near Vikram Pune. Vihar, Pimpri, Pune – 411017. Pan: Acapv0521H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarad Vaze, Ca – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, Irs–Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.06.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 26.03.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 26.03.2014. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.643/PUN/2025[A] “1. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee prays to condone the delay of 192 days in filing the present appeal. An affidavit explaining the rear lo delay will

M/S. GANGA ELECTRICALS,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX.-1, , NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 263 in the present case. 3. The learned PCIT failed to appreciate that the view taken by the A.O. after carrying out detailed verification and after application of mind to the submissions made by the assessee, was certainly a possible view and therefore, the revision order passed u/s 263 on the above facts was not justified

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. AMBARWADIKAR & COMPANY,, AURANGABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 2038 and 2039/PUN/2014 filed by the

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.2038 & 2039/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

section 145(3) of the Act. 12.4 After rejecting the book results for A.Y. 2010-11, I estimate the profit of the business of the appellant @13% of the business receipts before remuneration to partners or actual income returned by the appellant. The business profit for A.Y. 2010-11 @13% on contract receipts of Rs.12,99,58,419/- works

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. AMBARWADIKAR & COMPANY,, AURANGABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 2038 and 2039/PUN/2014 filed by the

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.2038 & 2039/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

section 145(3) of the Act. 12.4 After rejecting the book results for A.Y. 2010-11, I estimate the profit of the business of the appellant @13% of the business receipts before remuneration to partners or actual income returned by the appellant. The business profit for A.Y. 2010-11 @13% on contract receipts of Rs.12,99,58,419/- works

VISHWANATH MHATARJI METE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1349 To 1354/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2013-14 Vishwanath Mhatarji Mete, Vs. Acit, Circle- 1, Plot No.E-10, Midc Area, Aurangabad. Waluj, Aurangabad-431136. Pan : Akapm0524B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 04.01.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Respective Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 221 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2013-14. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1349/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Are Stated Herein.

1, Aurangabad [‘CIT(A)’ for short] confirming the levy of penalty u/s 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. Since the identical facts and issues are involved in all these appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience

VISHWANATH MHATARJI METE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1349 To 1354/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2013-14 Vishwanath Mhatarji Mete, Vs. Acit, Circle- 1, Plot No.E-10, Midc Area, Aurangabad. Waluj, Aurangabad-431136. Pan : Akapm0524B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 04.01.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Respective Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 221 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years 2008-09 To 2013-14. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1349/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Are Stated Herein.

1, Aurangabad [‘CIT(A)’ for short] confirming the levy of penalty u/s 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. 2. Since the identical facts and issues are involved in all these appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience