DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

142(1) of the Act in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act determining the total income of Rs.19,60,971/- wherein he made addition of Rs.10,76,291/- by invoking the provisions of section 56(2

KRISH WINES,JALGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1,, JALGAON

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

transferred from the ITO, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon to DCIT, Circle – 2, Jalgaon (now Circle – 1, Jalgaon) on 08.04.2019 as per jurisdiction. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 20.05.2019 along with questionnaire asking the assessee to file certain details regarding the scrutiny assessment. Second notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 31.10.2019 requesting the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

142(2A) was therefore carried out. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on ITAT Pune's decision in the assessee's own case on the similar facts for AY. 2009-10. However, the basis of adoption of GP percentage has not been mentioned by the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10. 2

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

142(2A) was therefore carried out. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on ITAT Pune's decision in the assessee's own case on the similar facts for AY. 2009-10. However, the basis of adoption of GP percentage has not been mentioned by the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2009-10. 2

SAR SENAPATI UMABAI DABHADE NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PCIT-3, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee furnished the requisite details/documents from time to time. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) after verification of the details/documents furnished by the assessee and perusal of the submissions made by the assessee, accepted the “Nil” income returned by the assessee thereby allowing the deduction

SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR.- 10,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1459/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-07

2) against interest received under Section 244A of the Act 3.1 The learned AO has erred in making an addition of Rs.23,43,436 by not accepting the netting off of interest payable. 3.2 The learned AO failed to appreciate that this very issue was concluded in its favour by decisions of the Tribunal in its own case which were

REHAU POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 519/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, distribution and marketing of polymer products and providing technical, sales and other services

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

transfer pricing adjustments ought not be made to the computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act. 7. Non grant of deduction under section 80-IAB on income from other sources and capital gains earned during the subject year The Hon’ble. DRP / NFAC / Ld.AO has erred in not granting a deduction under section

SHREENATH MHASKOBA CREDIT CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,PUNE vs. THE PCIT, PUNE-4, PUNE

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

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

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

PUNE MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHKARI PATAPEDHI MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,PUNE 4, PUNE

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

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 26.11.2021 accepting the returned income. 5. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT on perusal of the assessment record

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JALNA, JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transactions entered with AEs. From the various details furnished by the assessee the TPO noted that the assessee has entered into following specified domestic transactions during the year: Sr. No. Name of AEs Description of Specific Amount (In Method domestic transactions INR) 1 ASSAM TEA PURCHASE

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED , JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of the transactions entered with AEs. From the various details furnished by the assessee the TPO noted that the assessee has entered into following specified domestic transactions during the year: Sr. No. Name of AEs Description of Specific Amount (In Method domestic transactions INR) 1 ASSAM TEA PURCHASE

RAJKAMAL STONE METAL WORKS,AMBEGAON KHURD, DIST. PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE

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

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

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee to which, the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted from the capital account of the partner

NIHILENT TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section, "assessed tax" means the tax on the total income determined under s. 143(1) or on regular assessment under s. 143(3) as reduced by the amount of tax deducted or collected at source in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII on any income which is subject to such deduction or collection and which is taken into account

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

section 92B of the Act: Sr. No. Nature of Transactions Amount of MAM Transactions 1 Purchase of raw materials, spare 75,45,92,737 TNMM (for the parts & consumables material imported from AE’s only) 2 Purchase of finished goods 19,61,95,142 TNMM 3 Payment of Royalty 3,88,57,633 CUP 4 Payment of Global licence fees

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

section 92B of the Act: Sr. No. Nature of Transactions Amount of MAM Transactions 1 Purchase of raw materials, spare 75,45,92,737 TNMM (for the parts & consumables material imported from AE’s only) 2 Purchase of finished goods 19,61,95,142 TNMM 3 Payment of Royalty 3,88,57,633 CUP 4 Payment of Global licence fees

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2) and section 142(1) of the Act. During the years\nunder consideration, Assessee had entered into various\ninternational transactions with its Associated Enterprise(s) in\nthe course of its business. Assessee had paid royalty\namounting to Rs.54,30,69,318/-for A.Y.2015-2016,\nRs.46,99,15,361/- for A.Y.2016-2017 and Rs.51,26,51,778/-\nfor

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

142 (SC), he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has dismissed the SLP filed against the order of High Court in holding that where Assessing Officer made addition of 3 per cent in respect of bogus purchases over and above rate of gross profit of 4.63 per cent declared by assessee and passed assessment order