M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

Transfer Pricing Proceedings, the TPO carried out fresh search of comparables using the same criteria as used by the assessee while bench marking the transaction. The TPO had not rejected any of the comparables selected by the assessee. However, the TPO had added certain comparables to the list of comparables on the ground that those comparables were functionally comparable

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

10(38) of the Act. Further, the entire amount of Rs.7,68,24,174 was added\nback treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain

SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

section 12A of the Securities Contracts\n(Regulation) Act, 1956] has clearly held that Shri Vijay Kumar Jain has been\ninvolved in the manipulation of the share price of this listed company and has\nmanipulated so as to utilize this scrip to arrange entry of bogus long term capital\ngains and has subsequently restrained Shri Vijay Kumar Jain from accessing

DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferred to D-mat account on 28.12.2012 and sold through IIFL and the amount of Rs.1,01,12,902/- received in lieu of sale consideration was deposited in ICICI Bank. The Assessing Officer sought directions from the JCIT u/s 144A of the Act vide letter dated 26.12.2016 who gave directions which have been reproduced by the Assessing Officer

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

10(38) of the Act. Further, the entire amount of Rs.7,68,24,174 was added\nback treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain

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

10(38) of the Act. Further, the entire amount of Rs.7,68,24,174 was added\nback treating the same as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The\nappellant strongly objected to it in Grounds No. 5 and 6.\n\n8.1 The appellant submitted all the documents to the assessing officer at the\nassessment stage that pertain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

10(38).\nPCIT Vs Indravadan Jain, HUF Income tax ax Appeal No.\n454 of 2018 (Bombay HC) -date of order - 12-07-2023\nIn the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld\nthe decision of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal\nhad held that since the shares were purchased on the floor of\nstock exchange

ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

38,68,211 /-. iii. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in interpreting the words “so arranged” used in section 80IA(10) to impose burden on AO to prove tax avoidance before invoking section 801A(10), of the Act when bare reading of the provision does not impose

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

38,68,211 /-. iii. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in interpreting the words “so arranged” used in section 80IA(10) to impose burden on AO to prove tax avoidance before invoking section 801A(10), of the Act when bare reading of the provision does not impose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE vs. M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer (in short “the TPO”) under section 92CA(2) of the Act, the assessee‟s assertion was rejected. The TPO rejected the application of external TNMM adopted by the assessee and instead applied internal TNMM mechanism in order to benchmark the international transaction relating to export of spares and components to AE. The TPO analyzed the profitability

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PRIVATE LIMITED, BARAMATI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Transfer Pricing Officer (in short “the TPO”) under section 92CA(2) of the Act, the assessee‟s assertion was rejected. The TPO rejected the application of external TNMM adopted by the assessee and instead applied internal TNMM mechanism in order to benchmark the international transaction relating to export of spares and components to AE. The TPO analyzed the profitability

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Section\n143(1) of the Act.”\n12. We further find that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court\nhas decided the above referred questions of law holding as\nunder:-\n“10 In our view, the Tribunal has entirely misread the law as\nlaid down in Magneti Marelli (Supra). It is correct that in that\ncase also Assessee had paid royalty

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Section\n143(1) of the Act.”\n\n12. We further find that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court\nhas decided the above referred questions of law holding as\nunder:-\n\n“10 In our view, the Tribunal has entirely misread the law as\nlaid down in Magneti Marelli (Supra). It is correct that in that\ncase also Assessee had paid royalty