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

3) For the purposes of this section, "anonymous donation" means any voluntary contribution referred to in sub-clause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed

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

3) For the purposes of this section, "anonymous donation" means any voluntary contribution referred to in sub-clause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

45. Further, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to reasons recorded for reopening of assessment dated 26.07.2013 in the case of Sandvik Australia Pty Ltd., relating to assessment year 2008-09 along with Note filed in the computation of income and relevant Annexure to Form No.3CEB, which are attached at pages 46 to 51 of Compilation No.II

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. SANDVIK A B.,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.608/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-07

45. Further, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to reasons recorded for reopening of assessment dated 26.07.2013 in the case of Sandvik Australia Pty Ltd., relating to assessment year 2008-09 along with Note filed in the computation of income and relevant Annexure to Form No.3CEB, which are attached at pages 46 to 51 of Compilation No.II

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

3) For the purposes of this section, \"anonymous donation\" means\nany voluntary contribution referred to in sub-clause (iia) of clause\n(24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does\nnot maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and\naddress of the person making such contribution and such other\nparticulars

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

3) For the purposes of this section, \"anonymous donation\" means\nany voluntary contribution referred to in sub-clause (iia) of clause\n(24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does\nnot maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and\naddress of the person making such contribution and such other\nparticulars

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

3) For the purposes of this section, \"anonymous donation\" means\nany voluntary contribution referred to in sub-clause (iia) of clause\n(24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does\nnot maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and\naddress of the person making such contribution and such other\nparticulars

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

68 taxmann.com 91 (Bom) for the proposition that before invoking the provisions of section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, where the original assessment was completed vide intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and held as under:- “17. We have heard

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

45, wherein it has been held that it was the obligation of Assessing Officer to follow the principles of natural justice as read into section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section

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

45, wherein it has been held that it was the obligation of Assessing Officer to follow the principles of natural justice as read into section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section

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

45, wherein it has been held that it was the obligation of Assessing Officer to follow the principles of natural justice as read into section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section

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

45, wherein it has been held that it was the obligation of Assessing Officer to follow the principles of natural justice as read into section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section

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

45, wherein it has been held that it was the obligation of Assessing Officer to follow the principles of natural justice as read into section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section

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

45, wherein it has been held that it was the obligation of Assessing Officer to follow the principles of natural justice as read into section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

45,612/- interalia disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that Form 10CCB was not filed within the due date. The assessee being aggrieved by the said intimation order, filed an application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act before the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”). Subsequently, the case of the assessee

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

45,612/- interalia disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act for the reason that Form 10CCB was not filed within the due date. The assessee being aggrieved by the said intimation order, filed an application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act before the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”). Subsequently, the case of the assessee

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

45,890) after adjusting the incremental liability that may arise on disallowing health and education Cess. He, therefore, submitted that there is no basis for holding that the assessee has under-reported its income or done any act without good faith and due diligence and hence the provisions of section 270A of the Act do not apply

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

68 on account of accommodation Rs.\nentries\n(ii) Addition u/s 69C on account of commission paid | Rs.\nbeing unexplained\n(iii) Addition on account of interest expenditure\nAssessed Total Income\nRounding off u/s 288A\n7,62,67,463/-\n20,84,927/-\nRs.\n1,97,159/-\n10,78,45,691/-\nRs.10,78,45,690/-\n7.\nThe assessee filed an appeal

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

68 on account of accommodation Rs.\nentries\n(ii) Addition u/s 69C on account of commission paid | Rs.\nbeing unexplained\n(iii) Addition on account of interest expenditure\nAssessed Total Income\nRounding off u/s 288A\n7,62,67,463/-\n20,84,927/-\nRs.\n1,97,159/-\n10,78,45,691/-\nRs.10,78,45,690/-\n7.\nThe assessee filed an appeal