JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

172 ITD 404 (Mum) in paragraphs 14 onwards that Chapter-X could not be invoked wherein no income chargeable to tax has arisen in assessee’s case. Learned senior counsel further submitted that contrary to various other deeming fictions like section 50C, section 50D which pre-suppose even accrued or arisen or “assessable” consideration or section 115O etc envisaging

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

3 Sangeeta B. Mangrule A,Y. 2015-16 authorities was also highly questionable. Same was also true in the case of Paper/Jamakharchi/bogus clients. Though they were registered as a client with share brokers and the brokers maintained KYC for such bogus clients also yet these clients did not exist at their given registered address. In many cases, it was found

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

transfers to Deere & Co, no right, title or interest in the software, the documentation, or any copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

transfers to Deere & Co, no right, title or interest in the software, the documentation, or any copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

transfers to Deere & Co, no right, title or interest in the software, the documentation, or any copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

transfers to Deere & Co, no right, title or interest in the software, the documentation, or any copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. NATHMAL RUPCHAND JAIN, KOLHAPUR

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

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

172, C Ward, Vs. Bhausingji Road, Kolhapur – 416002 PAN: ABBPJ2022R (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Suhas P Bora, Sampada S Ingale CAs & Saukhya D Lakade Adv. Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08-01-2025 Date of pronouncement : 27-01-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed

FIVE STARS BULKCARRIERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 92B( 1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the said transaction has no bearing on profits, income, losses or assets of the appellant company. 1.3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that - • The corporate guarantee was a collateral security • The banks had specifically provided that no guarantee commission shall be payable

FRANCOIS COMPRESSOR INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2504/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ………. अपीलाथ" / Francois Compressor India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.147/1(New), Lavale Road, Appellant Pirangut, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune – 412115. Pan : Aabcf0496K. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (2), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah. Revenue By : Shri Amol Kamat. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dt.31.08.2017 Passed Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under : The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Sale

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for the purpose of bench marking of the above international transactions. The TPO vide order dated 27.10.2016 passed under Sec.92CA of the I.T.Act suggested the T.P. adjustment of Rs.7,55,91,764/-. On receipt of the order u/s 92CA(1) of the I.T. Act, the AO vide Draft Assessment Order dt.25.11.2016 proposed the following additions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

section 148A. In this case, the same has been complied by the AO in compliance to Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal Vs. UOI. In view of the above discussion, this argument of the appellant is therefore rejected and Ground No. 3 is hereby dismissed. 8. The ground No. 4 raised by the appellant

MANGESH A.TUPE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

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

172/- without verification of the facts of the case and not appreciating the factual position of the case. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax has also erred in applying provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. The ld. AR of assessee submitted that the assessee vide Development Agreement dated 17-01-2004 with Shri Popat

RAMESH G PORWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

172/- by the appellant for acquiring shares of Punjab National Bank & Bharatiship Yard be calculated for the purpose of disallowance under section 14A is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It further be held that no disallowance under section 14A is warranted on facts & circumstances of the Act. This disallowance so directed to be made be deleted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. RENAISSANCE CULTIVATION LLP,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1416/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Renaissance Pune. Cultivation Llp, Pastakiya House, A/P Kamshet Maval, Pune- 410405 Pan : Aaofr7634K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal : Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Entire Facts Of The Case.

172 ITR 95 (Bom.). (iii) Gopal C. Sharma vs. CIT, 209 ITR 946 (Bom.). 7 Abhijit Gaikwad, Shubhash Gaikwad and Ajit Gaikwad vs. DCIT, Central 2(1), Pune, ITA No.699, 700 & 701/PN/2013 (ITAT Pune). (v) Jitendra Sonigara vs. ACIT, Cir-9, Pune, ITA No.849/PN/2012 (ITAT Pune). (vi) Hanmantram Murlidhar & Company Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panwel, ITA No.515/PN/2012, (ITAT Pune

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

172/-. The details of the disallowances, which are the bone of contention before us, include the following: (a) The claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of expenditure detailed in ground No. 1 of the appeal. The Assessing Officer added the aggregate sum of Rs.61,71,472/- on this

MANGAL ANNASAHEB JADHAV,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, Ground No.1 and 2 are dismissed and Ground

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.665/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mangal A. Jadhav, The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, M/S.Shah Khandelwal Jain & Vs Ahmednagar. Associates, Level 3, Riverside Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune - 411001. Pan: Ahypj 9285 D Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Pune Dated 09.12.2016For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Fit Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) It Be Held That Addition Of Rs. 10,57,073/- Made By The Ao, Doubting The Opening Cash Balance Which Is Further Deposited Into Bank & Upheld By Cit(A), Is Merely On- Guesswork & Conjectures & Is Improper, Unjustified, Incorrect & Contrary To Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. No Such Addition Is Warranted In The Case Of The Appellant. The Addition Made By The Ao & Upheld By Cit (A) Be Deleted. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect. 2. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) It Be Held That Addition Of Rs. 60,00,000/- Made By Theao, Doubting The Advances Against Booking Of Flats Received In Cash In Which Were Further Deposited Into Bank & Upheld By Cit(A), Is Merely On Guesswork & Conjectures & Is Improper, Unjustified, Incorrect & Contrary To Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing

172 ITR 250 (SC). Documentary evidence plays an important part in law. The Courts attach great value for documentary evidence. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh Vs ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588 (P & H) pointed out that oral evidence is not conclusive as against documentary evidence under sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence