RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

68 has been referred but thereafter finally the addition has been made u/s.115BBC of the Act. We would like to go through the judicial precedents in this regard. We take note of the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

68 has been referred but thereafter finally the addition has been made u/s.115BBC of the Act. We would like to go through the judicial precedents in this regard. We take note of the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

68 has been referred but\nthereafter finally the addition has been made u/s.115BBC of\nthe Act. We would like to go through the judicial precedents in\nthis regard. We take note of the Judgment of Hon'ble High\nCourt of Gujarat in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT\n(2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

68 has been referred but\nthereafter finally the addition has been made u/s.115BBC of\nthe Act. We would like to go through the judicial precedents in\nthis regard. We take note of the Judgment of Hon'ble High\nCourt of Gujarat in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT\n(2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

68 has been referred but\nthereafter finally the addition has been made u/s.115BBC of\nthe Act. We would like to go through the judicial precedents in\nthis regard. We take note of the Judgment of Hon'ble High\nCourt of Gujarat in the case of Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT\n(2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat). In this case also

KALPESH RATILAL GARDHARIA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD- 2(3), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

264 ITR 254 (Guh) in support of the contention of the appellant that the addition made u/s. 68 by the AO could not be sustained. Some other cases have also been referred to in the Rejoinder, which mostly dealt with the non-application of the provisions of section

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 68 as amended wef from 2013. The said amendment provides that the in case of closely held Company the explanation given by such company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory unless the resident shareholder offers an explanation offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum and such explanation is found to be satisfactory

UNIVERSAL REALTY,PUNE, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SWARGATE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.811/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

68[***]; 69[(aa) in an appeal against the order of assessment in respect of which the proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates under section 245HA, he may, after taking into consideration all the material and other information produced by the assessee before, or the results of the inquiry held or evidence recorded by, the Settlement Commission, in the course

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

264 shall be admissible against the order of assessment or reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), in a case where an order under sub- section (4) has been made accepting the application." 20. Sub-section (18) of Section 155 of the Income Tax Act is inserted vide Finance Act, 2022 w.e.f

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

68 of the Act. 1) Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 2) CIT vs. Rathi Finlease Ltd. (Madhya Pradesh HC) 3) Par Excellence Leasing and Financial Services (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (Delhi ITAT) 4) J.J. Development (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, Kolkata 5) Advance Power Infra Tech Ltd. vs DCIT (Kolkata ITAT) 6) CIT vs. Korlay trading co. Ltd. (Calcutta

MR. VIJAY BAJIRAO BALWADKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

68,500/-, assessee has also raised the following additional ground challenging the validity of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act being invalid and void ab-initio since 3 Vijay Bajirao Balwadkar the same has been initiated without proper approval/sanction as required u/s.151 of the Act. “On the facts and circumstance prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

264 (Karnataka). The cases, where claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act was allowed as well as claim of remuneration u/s.40(b) of the Act was allowed from the additional income, were also filed. Taking parallel from the same, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the additional income offered is the business income, the statutory deductions are allowable

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

264 (Karnataka). The cases, where claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act was allowed as well as claim of remuneration u/s.40(b) of the Act was allowed from the additional income, were also filed. Taking parallel from the same, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the additional income offered is the business income, the statutory deductions are allowable

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

68,33,360/-. A company, namely, Begu Diesel Start Systems Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called `the Indian company‘) was incorporated on 16.10.1996. The assessee and a Germany company started business pursuant to the Joint venture agreement dated 16.12.1996. and CO No.11/PUN/2022 The assessee, along with his wife, held 51% shares in the Indian company, while the remaining 49% held by BorgWarner

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

68,33,360/-. A company, namely, Begu Diesel Start Systems Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called `the Indian company‘) was incorporated on 16.10.1996. The assessee and a Germany company started business pursuant to the Joint venture agreement dated 16.12.1996. and CO No.11/PUN/2022 The assessee, along with his wife, held 51% shares in the Indian company, while the remaining 49% held by BorgWarner

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de-novo after

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment de-novo after