MICHELLE Y.POONAWALLA,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 4 ,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

68,50,000/- and paid interest @ 12.50% on such borrowed amount. He argued that the assessee is entitled to claim the said interest paid on such borrowed amount to an extent of Rs.1,22,59,620/- during the year under consideration under Clause (iii)(b) of section 27 of the Act. The ld. AR placed on record Circular

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

68,72,632 to the taxable income of the Appellant including an adjustment of INR 2,10,10,000/- on account of transfer pricing matters and INR 58,62,632/- on account of corporate tax matters. 4 2. The Ld AO has erred in not providing a copy of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Board) approval for transferring

SIDHESH MOHAN RAIKAR,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.294/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

Section 5A of the Act. He thus concluded that the remaining credit of TDS of ₹10,36,269/- may please be allowed to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of ld.CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee

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

TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

269 (Del) (SB), DCIT Vs. Nokia Networks (2013) 212 Taxman 68 (Del), DCIT Vs. Ericsson A.B. (2012) 343 ITR 470 (Del), Tata Consultancy Services State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)271 ITR 401 (SC), Dassault Systems KK, In Re (2010) 229 CTR 105 (AAR), Geoquast Systems BV, Inre (2010) 327 ITR 1 (AAR), DDIT Vs. Reliane Industries

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. SECO TOOLS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.812 & 813/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04

269 (Bom) and then referred to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Khubchandani Healthparks (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom) for the proposition that before invoking the provisions of section

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

68 taxmann.com 152 (Cochin - Trib.)]- Para 7.2 / 7.3 (ii) Prem Prakash Mandal Sewa Trust v. ITO (Exemptions) - [(2021) 132 taxmann.com 269 (Raipur - Trib.)] (iii) Dera Baba Bhai Gurdas Ji Udasin Trust (Regd) (Mansa) v. ITO [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 278 (Amritsar - Trib.)] (iv) Alpha Educational Trust v. DCIT (E) [(2023) 150 taxmann.com 20 (Chennai - Trib.)] II. Proposition 2 : Where an application

INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. ATUL ASHOK PARAKH, AHMEDNAGAR

The appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

68,70,000/-, both totaling to Rs.3,18,70,000/-) to the total income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 69 of the Act. 4. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit had also challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition

KUMAR BUILDERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

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

68 of Rs.3,85,00,000/-. (ii) Addition on account of interest on the said unsecured loan of Rs.37,55,932/-. (iii) Disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 36(1)(iii) of Rs.1,56,31,290/-. (iv) Disallowance on commission payment of Rs.57,30,908/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was filed before

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

269 ["Motorola (ITAT)"] as follows: "65. The issue whether consideration for software was royalty came up for consideration before the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Delhi in the case of Motorola Inc v. Deputy Cit And Deputy Cit V. Nokia (2005) 147 TAXMAN 39 (DELHI). The Tribunal has held as under: 155. It appears to us from a close

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

269 ["Motorola (ITAT)"] as follows: "65. The issue whether consideration for software was royalty came up for consideration before the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Delhi in the case of Motorola Inc v. Deputy Cit And Deputy Cit V. Nokia (2005) 147 TAXMAN 39 (DELHI). The Tribunal has held as under: 155. It appears to us from a close

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

68,40,000/-, calculated at the ad-hoc rate of 12% on the interest free securitydeposits given to related parties in relation to two flats at Walkeshwar, Mumbai by merely following the order of learned CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 and ignoring the various arguments of the Appellant, including order of learnedCIT(A) for AY 2005-06 deciding

REHAU POLYMERS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

68,30,646\nTNMM\n7\nPurchase of Fixed Assets\n13,92,23,545\nTNMM\n8\nPayment towards consultancy and\n0\nNA\nprofessional services\n9\nPayment towards technical\n11,80,799\nTNMM\nservices\n10\nPurchase of Stores, spares and\n81,46,129\nTNMM\nsample\n11\nExpenditure Reimbursed Paid\n47,37,318\nCUP\n12\nGuarantee Commission Paid\n78,89,367\nOTHER\nMETHOD

GRUPO ANTOLIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1207/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Grupo Antolin India Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Limited, B 25, Midc, Ranjangaon, Taluka: Shirur, Pune- 412220. Pan : Aaaca6730G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. D. Mistri Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Cit(A)- 13, Pune’S Order Dated 10.02.2017 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/45/2013-14/606 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee Pleads The Following Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal :-

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) assessment dated 30.05.2013 in very terms making the impugned adjustment as per the TPO’s findings. The assessee preferred appeal. We note that although the assessee had filed its relevant documents which already formed part of the case file, the CIT(A) sought for the field authorities’ remand report on 18.07.2014 directing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRASANNA PURPLE MOBILITY SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

269 ITR 535 (P & H). The assessee in the present case has not be able to bring any material on record to indicate the purpose or the commercial expediency for advancing the aforesaid amount and the benefits accruing out of said advances is apparently not shown to have served any business purpose of the assessee. Thus when the assessee borrows