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

36. Coming to grounds of appeal No.6 to 8, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the observations of CIT(A) at page 23 and pointed out that the assessee had not supplied information and even the nature of services were not clear, so the question was of make available. He strongly relied on para

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

36. Coming to grounds of appeal No.6 to 8, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the observations of CIT(A) at page 23 and pointed out that the assessee had not supplied information and even the nature of services were not clear, so the question was of make available. He strongly relied on para

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD HINGOLI, WARD HINGOLI (CAMP AT PARBHANI) vs. VISHWAS AGRO PRODUCT PVT LTD, PARBHANI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

transferred for investment in fixed assets. Hence it is hereby concluded that the funds received by the assessee-company from the Pranav International Ltd., Dubai to the tune of Rs.1,62,84,153/- in FY 2016-17 are unexplained credit in the books of the assessee. Accordingly, the unexplained credit of Rs.1,62,84,153/- is added to the total

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

price which did not require TDS when the payments are made to the said vendors. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A), as per discussion given in para 4 to 3.17 of his order, decided the issue in favour of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

price which did not require TDS when the payments are made to the said vendors. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A), as per discussion given in para 4 to 3.17 of his order, decided the issue in favour of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

price which did not require TDS when the payments are made to the said vendors. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A), as per discussion given in para 4 to 3.17 of his order, decided the issue in favour of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

price which did not require TDS when the payments are made to the said vendors. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A), as per discussion given in para 4 to 3.17 of his order, decided the issue in favour of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

price which did not require TDS when the payments are made to the said vendors. Considering the above submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A), as per discussion given in para 4 to 3.17 of his order, decided the issue in favour of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

vii) amounting to Rs. 65,97,164 dis-allowed by the AO on the ground that the assessee being a bank, will not be eligible for the deduction. c. Excess depreciation inadvertently claimed by the Bank amounting to Rs 5,10,000, was dis-allowed in the course of assessment. d. Profit on sale of scrap amounting

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

price of such\ninvestment then loss of such investment is a capital loss.\n20. At the cost of repetition, brief facts relating to this issue\nare that in order to expand its business overseas and also to\nincrease its export sales and other Revenue in the field of\nmanufacturing of high precision caging components and\nAerospace and Defence Industries

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

36,722 TNMM spares parts & consumables 2. Purchase of finished goods 27,17,21,004 TNMM 3. Payment of royalty 1,55,68,463 CUP 4. Payment of Global License 16,69,862 CUP fees 5. Reimbursement of managerial 1,43,02,043 CUP remuneration Total 41,08,98,094 6 4. The appellant company also submitted TP study report

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

price of such\ninvestment then loss of such investment is a capital loss.\n\n20. At the cost of repetition, brief facts relating to this issue\nare that in order to expand its business overseas and also to\nincrease its export sales and other Revenue in the field of\nmanufacturing of high precision caging components and\nAerospace and Defence Industries

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

36(1)(vii) of the Act in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vijaya Bank Ltd., 323 ITR 166 (SC) after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this ground of appeal no.4 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, the appeal filed

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

36(1)(vii) of the Act in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vijaya Bank Ltd., 323 ITR 166 (SC) after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this ground of appeal no.4 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, the appeal filed

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

36(1)(vii) of the Act in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vijaya Bank Ltd., 323 ITR 166 (SC) after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this ground of appeal no.4 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, the appeal filed

MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT CIR.9,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1468/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.10/Pun/2012 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.298/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune : Shri Pramod Achuthan : Ms. Nandita Kanchan Revenue By घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2019 Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2019

36,57,880 on account of transfer pricing adjustments and not considering the comparability analysis as documented in the transfer pricing study report of AY 2006- 07 provided by the Appellant. The Appellant prays that comparability analysis as documented in the transfer pricing study report of AY 2006-07 provided by the Appellant be accepted and the addition made

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1468/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.10/Pun/2012 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.298/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 9, Pune : Shri Pramod Achuthan : Ms. Nandita Kanchan Revenue By घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2019 Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2019

36,57,880 on account of transfer pricing adjustments and not considering the comparability analysis as documented in the transfer pricing study report of AY 2006- 07 provided by the Appellant. The Appellant prays that comparability analysis as documented in the transfer pricing study report of AY 2006-07 provided by the Appellant be accepted and the addition made

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