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

natural justice is liable to be deleted. Ground No. 4 stands allowed in\nfavour of appellant.\n\n9. Even on merit also, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC allowed the claim of deduction\nu/s 10(38) of the Act made by the assessee by observing as under:\n\nAddition of Rs 7,68,24,174 under section

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

natural justice is liable to be deleted. Ground No. 4 stands allowed in\nfavour of appellant.\n\n9. Even on merit also, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC allowed the claim of deduction\nu/s 10(38) of the Act made by the assessee by observing as under:\n\nAddition of Rs 7,68,24,174 under section

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

natural justice is liable to be deleted. Ground No. 4 stands allowed in\nfavour of appellant.\n\n9. Even on merit also, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC allowed the claim of deduction\nu/s 10(38) of the Act made by the assessee by observing as under:\n\nAddition of Rs 7,68,24,174 under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. UNDERCARRIAGE AND TRACTOR PARTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer hurriedly passed an order u/s 271G on 18/10/2018. The statutory notice was issued only on 15.10.2018 and seeking compliance by 18.10.2018 is a gross violation of principle of natural justice

SHRI GANESH SERVA SEVA SANGHA SHRIPUR,SOLAPUR vs. CIT(E), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

natural justice could not be given inspite of exhaustive attempts undertaken by the FAO to examine the issue. Taking note of this observation, ld CIT(E) came to conclusion that the issue needs to be examined by the AO because the re- assessment order framed on 30.03.2022 is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 5. Aggrieved

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

natural justice is bad in law and that the reference under section 92CA (1) of the IT Act being bad is void-ab-initio, the draft Assessment Order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer is invalid rendering all the subsequent proceedings as bad. That as the reference under section 92CA (1) being bad void-ab-initio, the impugned Assessment Order

B & R INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

nature which shall be considered as non-operating item 6. The learned AO/ TPO have emed, in law and in facts by wrongly computing the margins of the below companies identified as comparable a. Hanuman Power Transmission Equipments Private Limited b. Balaji Switchgears Private Limited c. Debak enterprise Private Limited d. WR Talwalker Brothers Private Limited Common grounds of appeal

MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

transfer pricing officer ('Ld. TPO’) Hon. CIT(A) with regard to the arm's length price and thus it does not lead to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex parte order without granting

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP ,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer\" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in\nthe Explanation to section 92CA.]\n(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of\ntwo years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought\nto be revised was passed.\n(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

justice. The appellant prays for appropriate relief. 3. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) NFAC erred not passing a speaking order on merits of the grounds raised by an appellant and submission made before NAFC. The appellant prays for appropriate relief. 4. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, Learned CIT(A) NAFC

SHREE CHAITANYA-RAM FOUNDATION,BAVDHAN PUNE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

transfers the property to A for the same price at which he originally purchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he has received the market value of the property as on the date of resale, if, in the mean-while, the market price has shot up and exceeds the agreed price by more

SHREE CHAITANYA-RAM FOUNDATION,BAVDHAN vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

transfers the property to A for the same price at which he originally purchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he has received the market value of the property as on the date of resale, if, in the mean-while, the market price has shot up and exceeds the agreed price by more

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1723/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

Transfer pricing Officer (TPO) vide order dated 28.01.2021 passed u/s.92CA(3) made an adjustment of Rs.1,74,45,091/- to the international transaction relating to the export of traded spares to the AE. Thereafter, NFAC Delhi passed the Assessment Order u/s.143 r.w.s.144C(3) of the Act on 24.06.2021 making additions/disallowances assessed the income at Rs.2,29,81,09,549/-. Details

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

transfer of a capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act shall be computed at the rate of twenty-two per cent: Provided also that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

natural justice because of\nwhich the assessee was adversely affected\nCIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (Bombay High Court)\nINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 456 OF 200 7 7th September\n2011\nLong-term capital gains on sale of \"penny\" stocks cannot be\ntreated as bogus & unexplained cash credit if the\ndocumentation is in order & there is no allegation of\nmanipulation by SEBI

MR SHAIKH SHAKIL SHAIKH IBRAHIM BAGWAN,JALGAON vs. ITO, WRD-1(4), JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2160/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Ibrahim Bagwan, Jalgaon Prop. Of Javed Vegetable Company (Jvc), Barbhai Galli, Bodwad-425310, Dist-Jalgaon Maharashtra Pan-Attpb3077C Appellant Respondent

prices and other inevitable expenses. All the other arguments in the written submissions are for the legal issues challenging the validity of reopening, validity of the approval and other judicial issues. 6. On the other hand Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed

P Y C HINDU GYMKHANA,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

transfer pricing issue) is (a) exceeding Rs.25 lakhs in eight metro charges etc”. After issuing various notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act assessment proceedings were carried out and assessee made submissions 2 PYC Hindu Gymkhana to the details called for by ld. Assessing Officer (AO) through the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act issued

YORK TRANSPORT EQUIPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.125/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2015-16

Transfer Pricing adjustment u/s.92CA(3) of Rs.6,79,82,288/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution, without rendering any finding on merits. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions