DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

reopening of the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act on various grounds. The Assessing Officer rejected the objections raised by the assessee by passing a speaking order dated 13.12.2018. 7. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has received share capital and share premium money of Rs.24,11,50,000/- from nine companies

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

reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:-\n\n1. The assessee is an individual having share income from business profits being Partner in the firms M/s\nBafna Builders and Land Developers, Jalgaon and M/s United Buildcon, Pune, as also having salary income from\nM/s R.C. Bafna Jewellers, a proprietary concern

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reopening has been carried out on the basis of the incriminating material found in the case of search where the information pertaining to the person other than the searched person, i.e. assessee then the only recourse left with the AO was to frame the assessment u/s.153C r.w.s.143(3) and not u/s.147 of the Act. 18. Based on the above referred

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

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

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

reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:-\n\n1. The assessee is an individual having share income from business profits being Partner in the firms M/s\nBafna Builders and Land Developers, Jalgaon and M/s United Buildcon, Pune, as also having salary income from\nM/s R.C. Bafna Jewellers, a proprietary concern

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

reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16 are\nreproduced as under:-\n1.\nThe assessee is an individual having share income from business profits being Partner in the firms M/s\nBafna Builders and Land Developers, Jalgaon and M/s United Buildcon, Pune, as also having salary income from\nM/s R.C. Bafna Jewellers, a proprietary concern of Smt Taradevi

TASTY BITE EATABLES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

reopening of cases, Judicial matters and audit related matters. The Scrutiny report in the case was called for from the Transfer Pricing Officer on 01/01/2016. Moreover, the report of the TPO recommending filing of further appeal was not received physically but was received only through e-mail on 22.03.2016. The delay has been caused inadvertently and due to the above

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TASTY BITES EATABLES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

reopening of cases, Judicial matters and audit related matters. The Scrutiny report in the case was called for from the Transfer Pricing Officer on 01/01/2016. Moreover, the report of the TPO recommending filing of further appeal was not received physically but was received only through e-mail on 22.03.2016. The delay has been caused inadvertently and due to the above

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

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 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated

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

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 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated

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

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 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated

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

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 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated

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

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 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated

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

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 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated

UTTARA FOODS AND FEEDS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1987/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Uttara Foods & Feeds Pvt. Ltd. Venkateshwara House, Pune Sihngad Road, Pune-411 030. Pan : Aaacu3663Q .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

transfer pricing adjustment afresh after verifying the assessee‟s submission that the interest was charged at the rate of 15.25%. In the final impugned assessment order, an addition of Rs.1,31,78,383/- has been made for the differential rate of interest at 2.25% (17.50% as determined by the DRP minus 15.25% as charged by the assessee). The assessee

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. MAGIC SOFTWARE ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, cross objection filed by assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1802/Pun/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-11(1), Pune अपीलाथ"/Appellant ….

reopening of the assessment without notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, the Cross Objection raised by the assessee in this regard was allowed and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. In effect, there is no adjudication on merits relating to the grounds by the Revenue in the said appeal ITA No.1801/PUN/2013 dated 31-01-2017 which is on record

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reopening. The assessee filed objections assailing validity of reassessment on 19.11.2011. The Assessing Officer completed the re-assessment without disposing off the objections separately. In re-assessment order, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on goodwill, non-compete fees, trademarks, patents & knowhow. 5.3 The Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2009-10 in an assessment order passed u/s.143(3) denied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD.,, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reopening. The assessee filed objections assailing validity of reassessment on 19.11.2011. The Assessing Officer completed the re-assessment without disposing off the objections separately. In re-assessment order, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on goodwill, non-compete fees, trademarks, patents & knowhow. 5.3 The Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2009-10 in an assessment order passed u/s.143(3) denied