JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

32 lakhs was made in financial year 2010-11 on account of Joshi Wadewale, F.C. Road. He further pointed out that returns of income in the case of individuals were filed under section 153A of the Act. However, the returns of income filed by partnership firms were filed in response to notice under section 148 r.w.s

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

32 lakhs was made in financial year 2010-11 on account of Joshi Wadewale, F.C. Road. He further pointed out that returns of income in the case of individuals were filed under section 153A of the Act. However, the returns of income filed by partnership firms were filed in response to notice under section 148 r.w.s

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

32 lakhs was made in financial year 2010-11 on account of Joshi Wadewale, F.C. Road. He further pointed out that returns of income in the case of individuals were filed under section 153A of the Act. However, the returns of income filed by partnership firms were filed in response to notice under section 148 r.w.s

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

32 lakhs was made in financial year 2010-11 on account of Joshi Wadewale, F.C. Road. He further pointed out that returns of income in the case of individuals were filed under section 153A of the Act. However, the returns of income filed by partnership firms were filed in response to notice under section 148 r.w.s

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

32 lakhs was made in financial year 2010-11 on account of Joshi Wadewale, F.C. Road. He further pointed out that returns of income in the case of individuals were filed under section 153A of the Act. However, the returns of income filed by partnership firms were filed in response to notice under section 148 r.w.s

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

32 lakhs was made in financial year 2010-11 on account of Joshi Wadewale, F.C. Road. He further pointed out that returns of income in the case of individuals were filed under section 153A of the Act. However, the returns of income filed by partnership firms were filed in response to notice under section 148 r.w.s

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

32. He further continued his arguments on the next date and pointed out that the issue in Allianz SE Vs. ADIT (IT) (supra) was whether it is royalty or not. He admitted that the issue in Allianz SE Vs. ADIT (IT) (supra) was royalty or not however, he pointed out that reliance placed upon on the said decision was misplaced

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

32. He further continued his arguments on the next date and pointed out that the issue in Allianz SE Vs. ADIT (IT) (supra) was whether it is royalty or not. He admitted that the issue in Allianz SE Vs. ADIT (IT) (supra) was royalty or not however, he pointed out that reliance placed upon on the said decision was misplaced

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

32. He further continued his arguments on the next date and pointed out that the issue in Allianz SE Vs. ADIT (IT) (supra) was whether it is royalty or not. He admitted that the issue in Allianz SE Vs. ADIT (IT) (supra) was royalty or not however, he pointed out that reliance placed upon on the said decision was misplaced

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

32. He further continued his arguments on the next date and pointed out that the issue in Allianz SE Vs. ADIT (IT) (supra) was whether it is royalty or not. He admitted that the issue in Allianz SE Vs. ADIT (IT) (supra) was royalty or not however, he pointed out that reliance placed upon on the said decision was misplaced

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

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

32. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that the argument of the Ld. DR that section 153C of the Act does not bar reopening of the assessment u/s 147 when information received from a search on another person is factually incorrect and contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. He submitted

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

32. The ld. AR relied on the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) to support the impugned order granting relief. This judgment has been rendered in the context of section 90 of the Act. It would be apposite to consider the relevant parts of section 90, at the material time, providing as under: `90. (1) The Central Government

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

32. The ld. AR relied on the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra) to support the impugned order granting relief. This judgment has been rendered in the context of section 90 of the Act. It would be apposite to consider the relevant parts of section 90, at the material time, providing as under: `90. (1) The Central Government

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

POONA BOTTLING COMPNAY PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1484/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

32 of the Income Tax Act from the A.Y. 1996-97. As per the business norms, as stated earlier, the assessee receives the deposits/advances from the outlets of cool drinks and refunds the same as and when the Bottles and the Cases are returned to the assessee at the end of the business with that customer. As per the books

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68,22,860 Rs. 25.61.51.210) thereby assessing total income at Rs.25.68,22.860/- and computed balance tax liability at Rs.2,73,95,728/- instead of refund declared in return of income of Rs.31.40,690/-.” 2.1 Aggrieved by the order u/sec.143(1) of the Act, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A).Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] 2.2 Aggrieved

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

32(1)(ii) of the Act covered with expression ‘any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held the assessee entitled to claim the depreciation on such goodwill. 13. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that in assessment year 2008-09, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

32(1)(ii) of the Act covered with expression ‘any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held the assessee entitled to claim the depreciation on such goodwill. 13. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has pointed out that in assessment year 2008-09, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court