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. The assessee company accepted that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the revised return of income is not valid in law, as the assessee had chosen not to challenge this finding before the Tribunal. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 The ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had failed to take cognizance of provisions of section

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There shall be no order as to costs.” 25. In view of the above decisions, we hold that the assessee is entitled to raise an additional claim before the appellate authorities and the appellate authorities have the jurisdiction to entertain such a new claim. 26. We further find the Hon’ble Bombay

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained 13 ITA.Nos.1939 & 1940/PUN./2024 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained 13 ITA.Nos.1939 & 1940/PUN./2024 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

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

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 Nagda, [1995] 211 ITR 804/78 Taxman 219 (Bom.) 8. CIT v. Shahajada Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 311 (AP) 9. S. Dabir Singh, Jalandhar v. DIT [IT Appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD,, PUNE

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra, Judical Member & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 0628/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-5, Pune . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant

Transfer Price [in short ‘TP’] adjustment for total sum of ₹4,29,42,878/- was made in relation to (1) provision of software development ₹45,25,254/- (2) provision of sales & marketing support services ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 DCIT Vs Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd. ITA No. 628/PUN/2021 AY: 2013-14 ₹1,42,00,046/- (3) management service fees

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

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

254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2010 wherein the Tribunal at para 3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit

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

254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2010 wherein the Tribunal at para 3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit

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

254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2010 wherein the Tribunal at para 3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit

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

254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2010 wherein the Tribunal at para 3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit

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

254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2010 wherein the Tribunal at para 3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit

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

254 of the Act on 22.12.2011 pursuant to the specific directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2010 wherein the Tribunal at para 3 of the order has observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has denied the claim of exemption of the assessee on procedural grounds i.e. (1) claim not made in the return of income filed and (ii) audit

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

254 1,77,996.00 75,000.00 1,02,996.00 01/04/2019 Radico NV Distilleries Maharashtra Ltd. Journal 255 1,70,669.00 1,31,250.00 39,419.00 01/04/2019 Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd Journal 256 1,31,730.00 61,300.00 70,430.00 01/04/2019 Good Drop Wine Cellers Pvt Ltd Journal 253 90,606.00 90,606.00 01/04/2019 FARTELLI WINES PVT LTD Journal

ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUNGNALAYA & RESEARCH CENTER,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

254 of the Act, the assessee society was issued a certificate of registration w.e.f. 30/11/2003. Thus, this certificate of 12A registration subject to condition specified therein enabled the assessee society for the claim of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act from AY 2004-05(Pg328-330/PB-1). 2.5 While assessing income in very first