DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

ab initio. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC holding that the entire assessment order, which has been passed in the case of a non existing entity is null and void. The grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue are accordingly dismissed. 31. Even otherwise on merit also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

ab initio on several counts. Thus, it is requested that proceeding may please be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, assessment order passed us. 143(3) r.w.s.147 &144B dt 28/09/2021 is certainly bad in law, being passed on basis of said

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

ab initio on several counts. Thus, it is requested that proceeding may please be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, assessment order passed us. 143(3) r.w.s.147 &144B dt 28/09/2021_is_certainly bad in law, being passed on basis of said illegal notice

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in deleting the of Rs.17,80,059/- made on account of interest paid on alleged unsecured loans is 37 of the Income tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

ab initio on several counts. Thus, it is requested that proceeding may please be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, assessment order passed us. 143(3) r.w.s.147 &144B dt 28/09/2021 is certainly bad in law, being passed on basis of said

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

AB Sandvik Materials Technology Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1719/PUN/2011, relating to assessment year 2008-09, order dated 24.03.2017, wherein it has been held that where the assessee was providing IT support and advisory services, then the same is not ‘royalty’ and in turn, has relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

AB Sandvik Materials Technology Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1719/PUN/2011, relating to assessment year 2008-09, order dated 24.03.2017, wherein it has been held that where the assessee was providing IT support and advisory services, then the same is not ‘royalty’ and in turn, has relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

AB Sandvik Materials Technology Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1719/PUN/2011, relating to assessment year 2008-09, order dated 24.03.2017, wherein it has been held that where the assessee was providing IT support and advisory services, then the same is not ‘royalty’ and in turn, has relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

AB Sandvik Materials Technology Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1719/PUN/2011, relating to assessment year 2008-09, order dated 24.03.2017, wherein it has been held that where the assessee was providing IT support and advisory services, then the same is not ‘royalty’ and in turn, has relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

2. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming an addition of capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Yamini Investment Company Limited of Rs.85,38,145/- which is declared as long-term capital gain exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act by holding as non genuine and unexplained cash credit under section

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry

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

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

35 filed on 11.01.2019. I would like to state that subsequently, I had left the assignment and the partners of the above mentioned firm had appointed a different CA for looking after the appeal work. I wish to state that the notices during the appellate proceedings, as well as the appellate order passed u/s 250 dated 16.10.2023 was received

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

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

ab-initio. The Assessing Officer was not justified in passing the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not justified in rejecting the grounds raised by the assessee. For the above proposition, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: i) PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

ab-initio. The Assessing Officer was not justified in passing the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not justified in rejecting the grounds raised by the assessee. For the above proposition, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: i) PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPN. PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

ab-initio. The Assessing Officer was not justified in passing the assessment order in the name of a non-existent company and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not justified in rejecting the grounds raised by the assessee. For the above proposition, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: i) PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty proceedings when the ambiguity in the mind

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty proceedings when the ambiguity in the mind

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty proceedings when the ambiguity in the mind