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

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

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

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

VIVEK NARESH SHAH L/H OF DECEASED NARESH UMEDLAL SHAH,SANGLI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 & 2, SANGLI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2010-11

253(1)(a) of the Act? If yes whether maintainable? If yes whether maintainable in the event of non-compliance of section 159 r.w.s. 2(29) of the Act? 2. Whether in facts and circumstance of present case the appeal filed by the appellant without complying the provisions of section 159 r.w.s. 2

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 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.

2 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A)-1 erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,26,08,528/- as the assessee had failed to discharge the primary onus contemplated by section 68 of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A), Aurangabad be quashed and that

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, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. DHANRAJ CHHAGANLAL SHAH, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed on 30.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.37,80,103/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) at total

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. The return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed on 30.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.37,80,103/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) at total

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

2), Nagpur in ITA No. 61/Nag/2013 wherein the Hon‟ble ITAT Nagpur decided in favour of the department. Subsequently, Hon‟ble Bombay High Court also decided the appeal in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain, L/HShantidevi Bimalchand Jain Vs PCIT in ITA No. 18 of 2017 in favour of the Revenue, by observing inter-alia asunder: “The assessee had purchased

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