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

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon'ble\nHigh Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under\nsection 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material,\nsuch a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes\nof law.\n30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon'ble\nHigh Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under\nsection 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material,\nsuch a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes\nof law.\n30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under section 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material, such a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes of law. 30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under section 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material, such a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes of law. 30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

RAMANLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under section 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material, such a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes of law. 30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

RAMLAL BHIKULAL SHAH,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under section 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material, such a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes of law. 30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

CHITRA NARENDRA PARMAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under section 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material, such a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes of law. 30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon'ble\nHigh Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under\nsection 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material,\nsuch a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes\nof law.\n30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

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

251(1)(a) of the Act, in the notice u/s 250 dated 26.11.2024, the appellant was\napprised about the likely deviation from the principle of taxation adopted in the\nassessment order, despite a clear finding in it in para 6.5 of the said order into the\nconcept and principle of revenue recognition as detailed in the preceding sub-\nparas.\n6.7.17

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

c) During the course of hearing, Mr. Suresh Kumar produced an intimation letter dated 13th October 2021 stating that the order dated 28th September 2021 under Section 153C of the Act has a DIN, which is set out therein. Even if this is held to be in compliance with paragraph 5 of the Circular, which deals with regularization

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

251 CUP TNMM (finished goods) 3. Purchase of Non-clonable ID tags, 24,73,743 Other TNMM reader and applicator Method 4. Sale of clinical supplies 18,45,660 Other TNMM Method 5. Lease of PVdC Coating Machine 8,75,00,000 CUP TNMM 6. Loan Guarantee Given Nil Other Other Method Method 7. Performance Guarantee Given Nil Other Other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

251 CUP TNMM (finished goods) 3. Purchase of Non-clonable ID tags, 24,73,743 Other TNMM reader and applicator Method 4. Sale of clinical supplies 18,45,660 Other TNMM Method 5. Lease of PVdC Coating Machine 8,75,00,000 CUP TNMM 6. Loan Guarantee Given Nil Other Other Method Method 7. Performance Guarantee Given Nil Other Other

M/S. CAPSTONE SECURITIES ANALYSIS PVT LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.251/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.251/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Capstone Securities DCIT, Circle-1(1), Analysis Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pune Unit No.201, Building No.4, Commerzone, Samrat Ashok Path, Off Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune 411 006 PAN : AABCV9569K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee

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

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon'ble\nHigh Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under\nsection 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material,\nsuch a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes\nof law.\n30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

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

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon'ble\nHigh Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under\nsection 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material,\nsuch a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes\nof law.\n\n30.\nHe submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

251 (Del), he submitted that the Hon'ble\nHigh Court in the said decision has held that where ACIT granted approval under\nsection 153D without noticing discrepancy in assessment order or search material,\nsuch a mechanical approval without application of mind would be invalid in eyes\nof law.\n30. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision

HAVELI TALUKA VEEJ KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 and the Hon'ble\nKolkata High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Eastern Employees\nCooperative Credit Society Ltd. 390 ITR 524 took a view that the income\narising on the surplus invested in short term deposits and securities cannot\nbe attributed to the activities of the society and, therefore, not eligible for\nexemption u/s.80P

MAHLE BEHR INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

68,113/- and Capital WIP Rs.2,30,14,228/-. The DRP has denied claim for\nweighted deduction. The said testing and validation was carried out at the parent\ncompany's facilities in Germany and claim has been made u/s 35 (1) (iv) on the\nbasis of incurrence of capital expenses. Proposition for claim u/s 35 (1) (iv) has\nbeen upheld

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