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

price by passing necessary journal entries. 5. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments of the assessee. He noted that the assessee firm and the sister concern has purchased the lands for business purpose. However, as no business was carried on in these lands, the same was transferred to the partners which amounts to a transfer resulting

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

pricing report obtained and the transfer\npricing documentation maintained.”\n13. On going through the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional\nHigh Court and applying the ratio laid down therein on the\nfacts of the present case, we find that the same are squarely\napplicable and, therefore, we hold that 1d. DRP's directions\nconfirming the action of TPO making the upward

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2. Further, the assessment proceeding of the years preceding to\nAY 2019-20 (i.e. AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19) were carried out by the\nLd. AO and the order under section 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act for\nthese years are duly passed. And, in all these years the query of\nunsecured loans was raised and that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

151 TTJ 114 wherein it was provided that\nthe deduction cannot be claimed under section 10A of the Act\nif the return of income has not been filed within the time\nspecified under section 139(1) of the Act. But undeniably the\nassessee has not claimed any deduction under section 10A of\nthe Act. Therefore, we are of the view

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

transferred out\nback to them or invested in other non-current investments. Thus\nneither the funds nor assets are owned by assessee.\n(υ) The assessee has not submitted as to how by any stretch of\nimagination, inspite of various hurdles as discussed and explained\nby the assessee as above, it was possible to complete and construct

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

price bargained for. Nor has it any necessary reference to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer. The ratio of this decision was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407. Therefore, the legal position that emerges from

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

price bargained for. Nor has it any necessary reference to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer. The ratio of this decision was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. [1973] 87 ITR 407. Therefore, the legal position that emerges from

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

transferred out back to them or invested in other non-current investments. Thus neither the funds nor assets are owned by assessee. (v) The assessee has not submitted as to how by any stretch of imagination, inspite of various hurdles as discussed and explained by the assessee as above, it was possible to complete and construct a 75 bed hospital

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

transferred out back to them or invested in other non-current investments. Thus neither the funds nor assets are owned by assessee. (v) The assessee has not submitted as to how by any stretch of imagination, inspite of various hurdles as discussed and explained by the assessee as above, it was possible to complete and construct a 75 bed hospital

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

transferred out back to them or invested in other non-current investments. Thus neither the funds nor assets are owned by assessee. (v) The assessee has not submitted as to how by any stretch of imagination, inspite of various hurdles as discussed and explained by the assessee as above, it was possible to complete and construct a 75 bed hospital

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

transferred out back to them or invested in other non-current investments. Thus neither the funds nor assets are owned by assessee. (v) The assessee has not submitted as to how by any stretch of imagination, inspite of various hurdles as discussed and explained by the assessee as above, it was possible to complete and construct a 75 bed hospital

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

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

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

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

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

transfer pricing adjustment. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidenal of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue