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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

120; [(iii) an order under section 92CA by the Transfer Pricing Officer;] (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this

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

120; [(iii) an order under section 92CA by the Transfer Pricing Officer;] (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; 9 Shri Ganesh Serva Seva Sangha Shripur

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

b) increase in the\n assessment year under consideration was\nonly on account of interest\n131\n42-44\nc)\nDetails of loans which existed in FY 2017-18\n(i.e. AY 2018-19) and c) Increase in the\n6\n45\nd)\nDetails of loans which were availed in FY\n2018-19 (i.e. AY 2019-20 and did not existed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice-& Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.Dcit, Circle-8, Vs M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., Pune. 26/27, Mumbai Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune. Pan: Aaacf 2637 D Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By : Shrij.G. Pendse, Ar Revenue By : Shrim.M. Chate, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2023 Order Perpartha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Dated 19.05.2022For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1(A) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap Without Appreciating The Fact That Assesses Itself Categorized Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap As Other Income In The Profit & Loss Statement Of Roorkee Unit Undertaking & The Same Is Not Derived From The Activities Of The Eligible Business. 1(B) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Liberty India Vs. Cit (2009) 317 Itr 218 (Sc) Wherein The Words "Derived From' Is Explained? 1(C) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Sale Of Scrap, Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of M/S Fenner India Ltd. (241 Itr 803) Without Appreciating The Facts That The Same Has Been M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd.

Transfer Pricing Adjustment Rs. 2,56,70,426/- Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer (AO), the assessee went on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide its order dated 19/05/2022, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved with the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred this appeal before

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be.] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b

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

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

120 ITR 46/2 Tasman 541 (SC) 3. CIT. K. Jelani Basha [2002] 256 ITR 282/122 Taxman 509 (Mad) 4. CIT v. Ram Gopal (2015) 372 ITR 498/230 Taxman 205/55 taxmann.com 536 (Delhi) 5. Balraj V C77 [2002] 254 ITR 22/123 Tasman 290 (Delhi) 6. CIT. R.1. Sood (2000) 245 ITR 727/108 Tasman 227 (Delhi) 7. CIT v. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

120/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction of section 56(2)(viib) of ITA, 1961 was as an anti-abusive provision and therefore, when all investors are found to be genuine and bonafide investors, having proper trail of funds, and ensuring all tax compliances, etc., Ld. AO should not have made said addition. 6. On the facts

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

120/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction of section 56(2)(viib) of ITA, 1961 was as an anti-abusive provision and therefore, when all investors are found to be genuine and bonafide investors, having proper trail of funds, and ensuring all tax compliances, etc., Ld. AO should not have made said addition. 6. On the facts

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

120/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction of section 56(2)(viib) of ITA, 1961 was as an anti-abusive provision and therefore, when all investors are found to be genuine and bonafide investors, having proper trail of funds, and ensuring all tax compliances, etc., Ld. AO should not have made said addition. 6. On the facts

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

120/- without appreciating the real intent behind introduction of section 56(2)(viib) of ITA, 1961 was as an anti-abusive provision and therefore, when all investors are found to be genuine and bonafide investors, having proper trail of funds, and ensuring all tax compliances, etc., Ld. AO should not have made said addition. 6. On the facts

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

120/- without\nappreciating the real intent behind introduction of section 56(2)(viib) of\nITA, 1961 was as an anti-abusive provision and therefore, when all\ninvestors are found to be genuine and bonafide investors, having\nproper trail of funds, and ensuring all tax compliances, etc., Ld. AO\nshould not have made said addition.\n6. On the facts

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

4 10) The addition made by learned A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.1,18,82,797/- on account of credit in capital account of partner Shri Harleensingh Sethi u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 11) The addition made by learned A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.22,66,14,480/- on account