SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS ,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saitawadekarjewellers, The Pr.Cit, Pune-1. 1825, B2 Padma Talkies Bldg, Vs Opp.Urban Bank Bazar Peth, Chiplun – 415605. Pan : - Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assesseeisdirected Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1Dated 22.11.2022Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 27.11.2017Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pcit In His Order U/S 263, While Giving Effect To The Order Dtd.31.05.2022 Of The Honorable Itat, Erred In Making The Following Additions To The Income Determined Vide Assessment Order Saitawadekar Jewellers [A]

2. Dhanush General Stores vs CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (CG) 3. Fakir Mohd Haji Hasan vs CIT, 249 ITR 290 (Guj) In view of the law laid down in these cases, the amount of excess stock found during the survey viz. Rs. 30,01,449/- is to be added back in the assessee’s regular income

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

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

ARUNA SINGH ,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

68,389/-\nRs.2,18,655/-\nRs.90,472/-\nRs.31,31,51,116/-\n3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who\nwithout admitting the appeal dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the\nground that the assessee has not filed the return of income as well as not\npaid an amount equal to the amount of advance

OLIVE TREE TRADING PVT LTD,PUNE vs. ITO, CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

68,005/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under the E- assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues :-(i) Default in TDS & Disallowance for such Default; (ii) Investment in Intangible Assets; (iii) Lower amount disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in ITR in comparison

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Ld. Counsel contends that the generation of Electricity falls under the ambit of production of any article or thing. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT – 2. Giriraj Enterprises Vs. DCIT 163 ITD 1 (Pune Trib.) (TM) 14.4 We heard both the sides

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Ld. Counsel contends that the generation of Electricity falls under the ambit of production of any article or thing. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT – 2. Giriraj Enterprises Vs. DCIT 163 ITD 1 (Pune Trib.) (TM) 14.4 We heard both the sides

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Ld. Counsel contends that the generation of Electricity falls under the ambit of production of any article or thing. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT – 2. Giriraj Enterprises Vs. DCIT 163 ITD 1 (Pune Trib.) (TM) 14.4 We heard both the sides

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Ld. Counsel contends that the generation of Electricity falls under the ambit of production of any article or thing. For this proposition, he relied on the following decisions : 1. CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT – 2. Giriraj Enterprises Vs. DCIT 163 ITD 1 (Pune Trib.) (TM) 14.4 We heard both the sides

ADIENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68,19,249

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68,19,249

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68,19,249

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

68,644/- in respect of international transaction of Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., payment of Regional Service Charges pertaining to five intra- group services, whose ALP has been determined by the TPO at Nil. 6. The TPO in para 9.18 of his order took note of the fact that the issue is similar to that pertaining to the assessment

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

68,644/- in respect of international transaction of Goodyear South Asia Tyres Pvt. Ltd., payment of Regional Service Charges pertaining to five intra- group services, whose ALP has been determined by the TPO at Nil. 6. The TPO in para 9.18 of his order took note of the fact that the issue is similar to that pertaining to the assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) vs. S. M. BATHA EDUCATION TRUST,, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2908/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito (Exemptions), Ward-1, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. S. M. Batha Education Trust, Batha High School, A/P- Panchagani, Taluka: Mahabaleshwar, Satara-412805. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aacts7892J C.O. No.56/Pun/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2908/Pun/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 S. M. Batha Education Trust, S.M. Batha High School, Chessson Road, Panchagani, Tal. Mahabaleshwar, Dist.- Satara-412805. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aacts7892J बनाम / V/S. Ito (Exemptions), Ward-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Revenue By : Smt. Nandita Kanchan Assessee By : Shri Vishnu Bhutada सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.04.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-10, Pune Dated 05.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Appeal Of The Revenue.

section 143(2) of the Act on 29th April, 2015 & 01st July, 2015 are before filing of return of income on 21st October, 2015 and therefore is illegal and hence the reassessment order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law.” 3. Deviating from the regular grounds raised by the Revenue in the appeal memo and also

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE vs. DHULE ZILHA PARISHAD KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT DHULE, DHULE

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

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

249/- by making an addition of Rs.29,55,34,049/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.80,80,200/-, to the Nil income returned by the assessee. 4. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the deduction claimed

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 96 of the RFCTLAAR Act, 2013 : 7 M/s. Balaji Developers 1. Parasnath Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. v. CPC [ITA No. 151/Kol/2023] dated 06.07.2023. 2. Seema Jagdish Patil v. NHRC [(2022) 139 taxmann.com 249 (Bom)(HC)] 3. C. Nanda Kumar v. UOI [(2017) 396 ITR 21 (AP)] 4. Vishwanthan M. CCIT [WP No. 3227 of 2020 (C)/ Kerala HC] dated