DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

68,93,921 72,63,37,999 21. In the year under consideration, assessee claimed deduction in respect of technical know-how fee u/s.35AB of the Act amounting to Rs.16,19,41,319/- for the A.Y. 1998-99 in the return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act (Ref. table above). Out of this amount, Rs.3

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

68,93,921 72,63,37,999 21. In the year under consideration, assessee claimed deduction in respect of technical know-how fee u/s.35AB of the Act amounting to Rs.16,19,41,319/- for the A.Y. 1998-99 in the return of income filed u/s.139(1) of the Act (Ref. table above). Out of this amount, Rs.3

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

1)(vii) of the Act nor liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194J of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to disallow the A&M expenses of Rs.2,47,13,051/-. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to 15 allow

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

1. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (Bombay) 2. Siemens Information System Ltd. v. ACIT [2008] 172 Taxman 315 (Bombay) 3. Idea Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bombay) 4. Punia Capital (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 53 (Bombay) 5. Marico Ltd. v. ACIT-(3)(2) [2019] 111 taxmann.com 253 (Bombay

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

253,27,67,879/-. The year-wise break- up is as summarized below- Product FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 Total Gai Chaap 1,24,90,67,499 1,20,95,17,640 2,45,85,85,139 Other Products 1,77,58,950 5,64,23,790 7,41,82,740 GRAND TOTAL 1,26.68,26,449 1

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC.1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

253,27,67,879/-. The year-wise break- up is as summarized below- Product FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 Total Gai Chaap 1,24,90,67,499 1,20,95,17,640 2,45,85,85,139 Other Products 1,77,58,950 5,64,23,790 7,41,82,740 GRAND TOTAL 1,26.68,26,449 1

DHANRAJ CHHAGANLAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

68 of the Act. However, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) held that the same are taxable under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. The very fact that the assessee itself had offered to tax the credits in the succeeding assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2015-16 goes to prove that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. DHANRAJ CHHAGANLAL SHAH, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

68 of the Act. However, on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) held that the same are taxable under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. The very fact that the assessee itself had offered to tax the credits in the succeeding assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2015-16 goes to prove that

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

253 wherein, dealing with identical facts, the claim of the assessee was allowed. He submitted that similar view has been taken by the Indore Bench ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Academy vs. ITO reported in 167 taxmann.com 382. 33. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provision of section

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

253/- Shri. Khushiram Ram Kumar Pal 2 Shri. Ashok Meshram 44,21,804/- 31,613/- 3 Shri.Asim Haran Biswas 48,46,381/- 48,46,381/- 4 Gannon International 1,12,955/- 1,12,955/- 5 5 1,68,76,451/- 11,093/- GGS Designers Fabricators Pvt Ltd. 6 Guddu Singh 5,00,615/- Nil 7 Harshit Mondal

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 68 are absent, the addition made is 9 prima facie unjustified. He submitted that the CIT(A) / NFAC without understanding the evidence on record in a very cryptic order has sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer which is not correct. 16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing

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.

1) of the Companies Act, 1956 are placed at pages 41 to 48 of Paper 7 Book-2 and confirmations by the shareholders are also placed at pages 49 to 52 of Paper Book-2. 10. Referring to page no.3 of Paper Book-1, ld. Counsel submitted that the same constitutes copies of the bank statements of M/s. Nath Securities

M/S OM NAMAH SHIVAY TRADING COMPANY,,PARAOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2017-18

section 68 the recipient has to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. In the present case only identity has been proved as Mr Harish Kantilal Shah in a statement before the investigation wing Mumbai and on the overall perspective of evidence furnished by the appellant do not seem to have much creditworthiness. As regards as genuineness

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

253) wherein the subsidy is treated as revenue receipt. 3. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) 2, Kolhapur be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant leave to add, alter, amend and modify the above grounds raised at the time of proceedings before the Hon. Tribunal. ITA Nos.733 to 736/PUN/2017