ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 4, Pune …. Vs. Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bhageerath, 402, Senapati Bapat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411016 Pan: Aabcp1209Q

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 10A(7) r.w.s 80IA(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.5,12,68

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

7. Subsequently, the assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and even in the submissions made by the assessee before ld.CIT(A) it has been submitted that once the list of donors containing the names and addresses have been filed the assessee has discharged onus u/s.115BBC and there is no requirement to prove the source of donation unlike section 68

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

7. Subsequently, the assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and even in the submissions made by the assessee before ld.CIT(A) it has been submitted that once the list of donors containing the names and addresses have been filed the assessee has discharged onus u/s.115BBC and there is no requirement to prove the source of donation unlike section 68

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

7. Subsequently, the assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and even in the submissions made by the assessee before ld.CIT(A) it has been submitted that once the list of donors containing the names and addresses have been filed the assessee has discharged onus u/s.115BBC and there is no requirement to prove the source of donation unlike section 68

M/S. HONEWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

7 Wellwin Industry Ltd. (Segmental Data) 10.48% Mean 7.26% 11. The assessee was asked to explain the difference in the operating profit margins of comparable companies. Operating Profit Margin (Loss) of the assessee is (2.31)% for the aggregated system integration segment and (3.1)% for the aggregated distribution segment. 12. The assessee explained that the IS-Infra business should

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

7 Wellwin Industry Ltd. (Segmental Data) 10.48% Mean 7.26% 11. The assessee was asked to explain the difference in the operating profit margins of comparable companies. Operating Profit Margin (Loss) of the assessee is (2.31)% for the aggregated system integration segment and (3.1)% for the aggregated distribution segment. 12. The assessee explained that the IS-Infra business should

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

section 68 of the\nAct. Final finding of ld. AO making the impugned addition for\nΑ.Υ. 2012-13 reads as under :\n“The assessee has failed to substantiate its claim of donations being\ngenuine and received from the donors whose names were provided\nby the assessee. The assessee could not produce any records of the\ngenusiness of donors

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

section 68 of the\nAct. Final finding of ld. AO making the impugned addition for\nΑ.Υ. 2012-13 reads as under :\n“The assessee has failed to substantiate its claim of donations being\ngenuine and received from the donors whose names were provided\nby the assessee. The assessee could not produce any records of the\ngenuineness of donors

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

section 68 of the\nAct. Final finding of ld. AO making the impugned addition for\nΑ.Υ. 2012-13 reads as under :\n“The assessee has failed to substantiate its claim of donations being\ngenuine and received from the donors whose names were provided\nby the assessee. The assessee could not produce any records of the\ngenuineness of donors

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 359/Pun/2013 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2008-09

section 10A and 10AA of the Act; D. Denial of tax holiday claim amounting to Rs.2,37,68,534 in respect of Electronic Hardware Technology Parks (‘EHTP’) operations of the Appellant. 12. erred in invoking the provision of 10A(7

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

Section 80HHC deals with deductions in respect of profits from export of computer software etc. 23. There also the words used are "export out of India". But to be eligible for deduction under the aforesaid provision, mere export out of India is not sufficient. What is to be exported out of India should be from India to a place

KALPESH RATILAL GARDHARIA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO WARD- 2(3), KOLHAPUR

In the result, the grounds on merit are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 68 but the same was curable u/s 292B of the Act. Regarding the alternate claim of the assessee of allowing the set off of loss from derivative transactions from the deemed income computed u/s 68, the AO contended that for claiming set off of loss being business loss against deemed income the appellant should have claimed the loss

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

section 68 unexplained cash credit addition of Rs.78 lacs representing share capital and share premium. The CIT(A)‟s detailed discussion affirming the assessment findings to this effect reads as under: “6.3 I have considered the facts of the case, the order of the Assessing Officer and the submission of the appellant. The fact discernible from record

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

7,68,24,174 under section 68 of the Act :\n8. The assessing officer based on the findings of the survey

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

7,68,24,174 under section 68 of the Act :\n\n8. The assessing officer based on the findings

SOPAN BANDOBA CHAVAN,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), PUNE

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

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

section 68 get triggered, etc.). Kindly consider this crucial issue and oblige.” 7. He submitted that the assessee has categorically

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

7,68,24,174 under section 68 of the Act :\n\n8. The assessing officer based on the findings

MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

section 68 of the Act. 4. The Assessing Officer noted that during the course of search action, loose paper as page Nos.3 to 7

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN, NANDURBAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

section 68 of the Act. 4. The Assessing Officer noted that during the course of search action, loose paper as page Nos.3 to 7