ADURJEE AND BROS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

272/- and disallowed Rs.2,68,295/-. The contention of ld. AR, Shri R.S. Abhyankar is that tax includes surcharge and cess. The assessee is entitled to entire credit as claimed to an extent of Rs.33,41,567/- and placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivasan reported

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

272 (Delhi). He further submits that the provisions of section (1) of section 10AA provides that while computing the total income of the respondent-assessee company, an entrepreneur, who begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or provide any services from a unit established in Special Economic Zone shall be entitled for deduction of the profits derived

DEELIP GANPATRAO KORDE,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1373/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Deelip Ganpatrao Korde, V The Assistant Shop No.1, Purvi Apt Behind S Commissioner Of Sai Palace, Chetna Nagar, Nashik Income Tax, Circle-1, – 422009. Nashik. Pan: Afnpk2831F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Dated 16.05.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.74,64,500 U/S 68 Towards Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period Made By The A.O. In The Ex-Parte Asst, Order U/S 144 On The Ground That The Appellant Had Failed To Explain Source Of The Cash Deposits In The Course Of The Ex-Parte Asst, Proceedings Without Appreciating That The Said Addition Was Not Justified On Facts & In Law.

68 towards alleged unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period made by the A.O. in the ex-parte asst, order u/s 144 on the ground that the appellant had failed to explain source of the cash deposits in the course of the ex-parte asst, proceedings without appreciating that the said addition was not justified on facts

MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

68,45,064/- was proposed. The Appellant filed for rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act for reducing the TP adjustment on account of Manufacturing Segment 4 to Rs.16,90,85,442/-. Accordingly, rectification order was passed on 1st Feb 2017 with reduced TP adjustment of Rs.18,94,51,272/-. The Appellant filed an appeal to the CIT(A) against

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI vs. JAGRUT MOTORS, RATNAGIRI

Appeal of the Revenue is DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri . . . . . . . . Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S Jagrut Motors, D-25, Midc, Mirjole, Ratnagiri– 415 639 Pan : Aadfj1431D . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/05/2024 Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Anent To Assessment Year 2012-13 [For Short ‘Ay’] Is Assailed Against The First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Cit(A) /Nfac’] Dt. 19/12/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Order Of Penalty Dt. 14/03/2019 Passed U/S 271E By The Jcit Ratnagiri Range, Ratnagiri [For Short ‘Ao’]

68,90,000/- in cash to its sister concern against the repayment of loans/advance ₹75,34,545/- taken by it in discharging its Maharashtra Value Added Tax [in short ‘MVAT’] Liability which was paid by its sister concern. 3.3 On a reference from the assessing officer, the Ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings by issue of show cause notice

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

272, the decision of Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 1090 of 1983 with C.A. No. 1560 of 1983 in the case of Ram Ugrah Singh Girjar Singh & others Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay has held that the assessee is a ‘local authority’, therefore, in absence of any distinguishable features brought on record by the Ld. Special Counsel

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

272, the decision of Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 1090 of 1983 with C.A. No. 1560 of 1983 in the case of Ram Ugrah Singh Girjar Singh & others Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay has held that the assessee is a ‘local authority’, therefore, in absence of any distinguishable features brought on record by the Ld. Special Counsel

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

272, the decision of Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 1090 of 1983 with C.A. No. 1560 of 1983 in the case of Ram Ugrah Singh Girjar Singh & others Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay has held that the assessee is a ‘local authority’, therefore, in absence of any distinguishable features brought on record by the Ld. Special Counsel

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

272, the decision of Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 1090 of 1983 with C.A. No. 1560 of 1983 in the case of Ram Ugrah Singh Girjar Singh & others Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay has held that the assessee is a ‘local authority’, therefore, in absence of any distinguishable features brought on record by the Ld. Special Counsel

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

272, the decision of Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 1090 of 1983 with C.A. No. 1560 of 1983 in the case of Ram Ugrah Singh Girjar Singh & others Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay has held that the assessee is a ‘local authority’, therefore, in absence of any distinguishable features brought on record by the Ld. Special Counsel

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

272, the decision of Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 1090 of 1983 with C.A. No. 1560 of 1983 in the case of Ram Ugrah Singh Girjar Singh & others Vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay has held that the assessee is a ‘local authority’, therefore, in absence of any distinguishable features brought on record by the Ld. Special Counsel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI AVINASH KANTILAL JAIN,, JALGAON

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

68,070/-. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nashik on examination of the assessment record had formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as the exemption under the provisions of section 10(38) in respect of long term capital gains on sale

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

68. The above submissions proceed purely on surmises and conjectures and if accepted as such will lead to sending the tax authorities themselves on a wild-goose chase of what can at best be described as a 'mirage'. First of all, there has to be a clear statutory mandate for such an exercise. The Court is unable to find

PARANJAPE PENDSE ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2014-15

272/- c) Rs.83,20,000/- being addition on account of sale of immovable property - 4. In appeal, the CIT(A) vide order dated 27.03.2019 deleted the addition of Rs.58,98,675/- and Rs.83,20,000/-, respectively as per item Nos.2 and 3 above. So far as the disallowance of 20% of the expenses is concerned, the CIT(A) sustained

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

272/-. Thus, the assessee has shown net loss of Rs.2,86,66,585/- under the head ‘Income from other sources’ and set it off against the ‘Income from business and profession’ resulting in total income of Rs.Nil. He further noted that the assessee has shown exempt income of Rs.1,13,777/- being with Rule 8D of the I T Rules

ALNESH MOHAMADAKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

272/-. Thus, the assessee has shown net loss of\nRs.2,86,66,585/- under the head 'Income from other sources' and set it off against\nthe 'Income from business and profession' resulting in total income of Rs.Nil. He\nfurther noted that the assessee has shown exempt income of Rs.1,13,777/- being\nshare of profit received from the firms

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

272 (Mumbai-Trib.) iii) Techbooks International (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 528 (Delhi-Trib.) iv) Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 17 taxmann.com 187 (Bom) v) Carrier Race Technologies (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2015) 64 taxmann.com 252 (Madras) 35. The Ld. DR stressed that only prima facie opinion must be formed, which the Assessing Officer

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

272 (Mumbai-Trib.) iii) Techbooks International (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 528 (Delhi-Trib.) iv) Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2012) 17 taxmann.com 187 (Bom) v) Carrier Race Technologies (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2015) 64 taxmann.com 252 (Madras) 35. The Ld. DR stressed that only prima facie opinion must be formed, which the Assessing Officer