INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 वष"

56(2) of the Act which governs the taxing of certain gifts despite its capital nature. 20. We have perused the said decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Chandraprabhu Jain Swetamber Mandir Vs. ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 245 (Mumbai-Trib.). It is also a case of unregistered trust u/s.12A/12AA of the Act. The question before

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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

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

1), End User License was granted by Dakota Software Corporation under and subject to Master Agreement, as referred in the paras above and statement of work between Dakota Software Corporation and any other legal entity which was licensing access and use of software and instruction to access or use software. Then under clause 2.1 it is provided the access

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

56 the Apex Court has held as under: "...The Allahabad High Court specifically considered the effect of introduction of Explanation (aa ) to section 80HHC(4A) of the Act and had taken the view in Ram Babu & Sons v. Union of India [1996] 222 ITR 606 that this Explanation means that for the purpose of this section, there will

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 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and also made further 26 CO No.43/PUN/2025 addition of the interest paid of Rs.17,80,059/- by invoking the provisions of section 37 of the Act. We find before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

56,529/- was brought to assessment under Section 41(1) of the Act. The assessee appealed unsuccessfully to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and thereafter carried the matter in further appeal to the Tribunal. Its contention before the Tribunal was that the unilateral entry of transferring the amount from the suspense account to the capital reserve account would not bring

KRISH WINES,JALGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1,, JALGAON

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

68,15,700/- during the demonization period out of which an amount\nof Rs.13,56,000/- was Specified Bank Notes deposited in the account maintained\nwith the Hasti Co-op. Bank Ltd., Chalisgaon and an amount of Rs.20,10,000/-\nSBN deposited in the bank account maintained with Godavari Laxmi Co-op. Ltd.,\nJalgaon. Thus, the total cash deposited

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

68 onwards of the paper book. As per the Scheme of arrangement u/s.391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, it has been provided that all the assets and liabilities of the undertaking of the amalgamating company shall stand transferred and vest in and deemed to be the assets and liabilities of the amalgamated company. Clause

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

68 onwards of the paper book. As per the Scheme of arrangement u/s.391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, it has been provided that all the assets and liabilities of the undertaking of the amalgamating company shall stand transferred and vest in and deemed to be the assets and liabilities of the amalgamated company. Clause

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

68,330/- (Rs.1,91,52,577/- minus Rs.1,14,84,247/-) cannot qualify for credit against the tax liability arising under the Act. 27 and IT(TP) A.No.10/Bang/2014 32. The ld. AR relied on the judgment in Wipro Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 179 (Karn) to contend that credit for the full amount of foreign tax at Rs.1

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

1. Where false evidence had been Investment (P.) Ltd. [2013] 40 adduced by assessee to give colour taxmann.com 525 (Delhi) of genuineness to bogus entries through bank accounts and deposits which were mostly by cash, Assessing Officer was justified in making addition under section 68. 19 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. 2. PANs are issued without de-facto verification, these

JEETU BHAGCHANAD KHEMANI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, NASHIK

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

1, 2, 30, 71 and 81 Shri Sharad Shah - Sr. No.4 Shri M.K. Kulkarni – Sr. No.5, 9 – 11, 21, 27, 32, 56 and 68 Shri M.R. Bhagwat – Sr. No.6 Shri P.S. Shingte – Sr. No.8, 28, 33, 49, 51-54, 61-63 and 67 Shri Rajeev Kulkarni – Sr. No.12 – 15, 19 and 20 Shri Vipin Gujarathi – Sr. No.17

RAKESH LALCHNAND SHAH,,KARAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE , , SATARA

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

1, 2, 30, 71 and 81 Shri Sharad Shah - Sr. No.4 Shri M.K. Kulkarni – Sr. No.5, 9 – 11, 21, 27, 32, 56 and 68 Shri M.R. Bhagwat – Sr. No.6 Shri P.S. Shingte – Sr. No.8, 28, 33, 49, 51-54, 61-63 and 67 Shri Rajeev Kulkarni – Sr. No.12 – 15, 19 and 20 Shri Vipin Gujarathi – Sr. No.17

DR. M. S. HIREMATH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

1, 2, 30, 71 and 81 Shri Sharad Shah - Sr. No.4 Shri M.K. Kulkarni – Sr. No.5, 9 – 11, 21, 27, 32, 56 and 68 Shri M.R. Bhagwat – Sr. No.6 Shri P.S. Shingte – Sr. No.8, 28, 33, 49, 51-54, 61-63 and 67 Shri Rajeev Kulkarni – Sr. No.12 – 15, 19 and 20 Shri Vipin Gujarathi – Sr. No.17

LALCHAND CHHOTALAL SHAH,,KARAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE , , SATARA

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

1, 2, 30, 71 and 81 Shri Sharad Shah - Sr. No.4 Shri M.K. Kulkarni – Sr. No.5, 9 – 11, 21, 27, 32, 56 and 68 Shri M.R. Bhagwat – Sr. No.6 Shri P.S. Shingte – Sr. No.8, 28, 33, 49, 51-54, 61-63 and 67 Shri Rajeev Kulkarni – Sr. No.12 – 15, 19 and 20 Shri Vipin Gujarathi – Sr. No.17

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3),, PUNE vs. RAHUL NAYAN BHALERAO,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

1, 2, 30, 71 and 81 Shri Sharad Shah - Sr. No.4 Shri M.K. Kulkarni – Sr. No.5, 9 – 11, 21, 27, 32, 56 and 68 Shri M.R. Bhagwat – Sr. No.6 Shri P.S. Shingte – Sr. No.8, 28, 33, 49, 51-54, 61-63 and 67 Shri Rajeev Kulkarni – Sr. No.12 – 15, 19 and 20 Shri Vipin Gujarathi – Sr. No.17

BHATABHAI SHANKAR PATEL,,NANDURBAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4,, DHULE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

1, 2, 30, 71 and 81 Shri Sharad Shah - Sr. No.4 Shri M.K. Kulkarni – Sr. No.5, 9 – 11, 21, 27, 32, 56 and 68 Shri M.R. Bhagwat – Sr. No.6 Shri P.S. Shingte – Sr. No.8, 28, 33, 49, 51-54, 61-63 and 67 Shri Rajeev Kulkarni – Sr. No.12 – 15, 19 and 20 Shri Vipin Gujarathi – Sr. No.17