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

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

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

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

section 92D. Perusal of Transfer pricing study report shows that the appellant has adopted CUP as most appropriate method for all the transactions with the AEs. Following are the details given by the appellant in its TP study report on page 26 and 39. 3 ITA No.839/PUN/2024, AY 2015-16 Sr. No. Type of Amount Rs. Criteria Transaction 1 Purchase

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

Transfer Pricing Officer about the amalgamation between SPENI and SPNI under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act effective from 1 April 2015 and that the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded to pass the assessment order against a non-existent entity. The Tribunal has in fact observed that apart from the first communication dated 02 January 2017, there

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

148 ITR 478 (P&H). 51. As regards the applicability of ratio of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that in the said case the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was concerned with the interpretation of provisions of sub- section (8) of section 10B and made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

148 ITR 478 (P&H). 51. As regards the applicability of ratio of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered opinion that in the said case the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was concerned with the interpretation of provisions of sub- section (8) of section 10B and made

MR. ABRAR FAKIRMOHMMAD SHAIKH,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.208/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Abrar Fakirmohmmad Vs. Ito (International Shaikh, Taxation), Nashik. At Manakeshwar, North Solapur, Tal. Bhoom, Barshi, Solapur- 413213. Pan : Chfps0191E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Prashant Gadekar Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual & Non-Resident Indian In Terms Of Income-Tax Purpose. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed On 05.07.2014 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,85,740/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, No Scrutiny Assessment Was Made. Subsequently, On Receipt Of The Information That The Appellant Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.1,20,40,000/- With Solapur District Co- Operative Central Bank, The Assessing Officer Formed An Opinion That The Income Had Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Had Issued A Notice U/S 148 On 31.03.2021. In Response To Said Notice U/S 148, The Appellant Filed The Return Of Income On 03.04.2021 Disclosing Same Income As Declared In The Original Return Of Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 20.12.2022 Passed U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs.1,23,98,740/-. While Doing So, The Assessing Officer Brought To Tax A Sum Of Rs.1,21,80,000/- Being The Amount Of Cash Deposits In The Bank I.E. Cash Deposits Of Rs.1,20,40,000/- Made With Solapur District Co-

148, the appellant filed the return of income on 03.04.2021 disclosing same income as declared in the original return of income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 20.12.2022 passed u/s 144C(13) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at a total income of Rs.1,23,98,740/-. While doing

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e)the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

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

148 of the Act, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) noted that the assessee has offered interest income of Rs.22,894/- to tax. However, no capital gain has been disclosed by him for the relevant AY 2014-15 under consideration. Thereafter, two more show cause notices were issued on 19.12.2019 and 25.12.2019 and served upon the assessee through e-mail

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

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

148 of the Act. Subsequently, the jurisdiction of the case was transferred from the office of the ITO 2(4), Kolkata to ACIT, Central Circle – 1, Aurangabad. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued. Further notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were also issued to different entities from which the share amounts were received by the assessee

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

transfer of such immovable property. 4.4 This section came into the effect om 01.04.2014 as per the finance act 2013. Therefore the section raised by the appellant that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not attracted in her case, is hereby ejected. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the AO has rightly added difference in the computation

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

price was paid by cheque and respondent's bank account has\nbeen debited. The shares were also transferred into respondent's Demat\naccount where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one\nyear the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the\nKolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

prices of Equity shares of M/s. Achal Investment Ltd. Ld. AO also observed that assessee has purchased the Equity shares of M/s. Achal Investment Ltd. through offline mode on 12.11.2012. Further, there was no response from the side of assessee to the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. Ld. AO concluded that the long term capital gain shown

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

148 of the Act.\n\n4. The A.O. did not accept respondent's claim of long term capital gain and added\nthe same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act. While allowing the\nappeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the addition made under Section 68\nof the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that