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

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

b) of sub-section (2) of section 249, grant immunity from imposition of penalty under section 270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C or section 286CC, where the proceedings for penalty under section 270A has not been initiated under the circumstances referred to in sub-section (9) of the said section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE vs. M/S SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (TRUST), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

249 ITR 533. (ii) Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions, 363 ITR 230. (E). As regards to the allegation of violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) by providing rent free accommodation to Shri Maruti N. Navale, it is submitted that the said Shri Maruti N. Navale had not been paid any remuneration by the appellant society for the following

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1176/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.1176/PUN/2015 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1176/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by assessee and Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.1176/PUN/2015 has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

Section 10(38) and treating such long term capital gain as bogus. 25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s. Manidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017, order dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted that

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

Section 10(38) and treating such long term capital gain as bogus. 25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s. Manidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017, order dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted that

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

249 (SC). 36. The various other decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also support his case to the proposition that where addition based on penny stock transaction had already been considered while making scrutiny assessment under section 143(3), notice for reopening under section 148 for same transaction could not be issued in absence

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]

b. Disallowance on account alleged cash payments in violation of Section 40A(3). even though, as was substantiated in the submission to the Ld. PCIT, there isneither any violation of S.40A (3) nor the excess income declared during surveyhas remained to be disclosed, which fact was duly examined by the AO duringthe assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). The appellant

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

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

SHASHI STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year : 2017-18

B’ PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shashi Structural Engineers Vs. ACIT, Private Limited, Central Circle-2(1), 10, Rupesh Housing Society, Pune Lane No.10, Dahanukar Colony, Kothrud, Pune 411 029 Maharashtra PAN : AAJCS5055K Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue by Shri Umesh Phade Date of hearing

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

4. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that the assessee is an Indian company engaged in the manufacturing of Goodyear branded Medium, Commercial truck tyres, Wire built tyres, Road tyres and Rear farm tyres. Return of income was furnished declaring total income of Rs.75.83 crore. After set-off of brought forward depreciation/loss of Rs.56.74 crore, income was arrived

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

4. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that the assessee is an Indian company engaged in the manufacturing of Goodyear branded Medium, Commercial truck tyres, Wire built tyres, Road tyres and Rear farm tyres. Return of income was furnished declaring total income of Rs.75.83 crore. After set-off of brought forward depreciation/loss of Rs.56.74 crore, income was arrived

SHEI RAJIV NAGARI PATASAVNSTHA MARYA HITANI,GADHINGLAJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 KOLHAPUR , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

68 of the Act and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee by applying the provisions of section 249(4) of the Act as the 3 ITA No.1727/PUN/2025, AY 2019-20 assessee has not paid the tax due on income

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH ,PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

b). He referred to the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Apeejay Education Society (2015) 59 taxmann.com 102 (P&H) where the Hon’ble High Court has held that registration granted to the assessee society u/s 12AA could not be cancelled on mere ground that the assessee made bogus purchases of software

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

b). He referred to the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Apeejay Education Society (2015) 59 taxmann.com 102 (P&H) where the Hon’ble High Court has held that registration granted to the assessee society u/s 12AA could not be cancelled on mere ground that the assessee made bogus purchases of software