M/S. CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

transfer of 34000 Equity shares at value of Rs.11,764.70 per share. The assessee submitted valuation report in respect of Equity shares to Diana having the fair market of shares at Rs.11,680.00 per share under Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method. The AO held that the shares acquired by the assessee from ABIL were undervalued at Rs.11,764.70 per share

M/S. CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

transfer of 34000 Equity shares at value of Rs.11,764.70 per share. The assessee submitted valuation report in respect of Equity shares to Diana having the fair market of shares at Rs.11,680.00 per share under Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method. The AO held that the shares acquired by the assessee from ABIL were undervalued at Rs.11,764.70 per share

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2) of the Act were served.\nThe assessee company is engaged in manufacturing and sale\nof Internal Combustion Engines and is a 51% subsidiary of\nCummins Inc. USA. There were certain international\ntransactions and arms's length price (ALP) of such\ntransactions was required to be determined. With the\nnecessary approval of PCIT, reference was made to the Ld.\nTransfer

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2) of the Act were served.\nThe assessee company is engaged in manufacturing and sale\nof Internal Combustion Engines and is a 51% subsidiary of\nCummins Inc. USA. There were certain international\ntransactions and arms's length price (ALP) of such\ntransactions was required to be determined. With the\nnecessary approval of PCIT, reference was made to the Ld.\nTransfer

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)

transfer of humanskill is a revenue, though the benefit may be of enduring in nature. Hence, the said expenditure has to betreated as revenue expenditure. The order passed by the Assessing Officer to disallow the expenditure asrevenue expenditure is erroneous in law. 38. In the context of business take over by Banks, the Reserve Bank of India has specifically provided

ASHA SHIVAJIRAO BHISE,LATUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act concluded that for the difference amount of ₹2,02,61,000/-, the addition of ₹1,01,30,500/- (50%) deserves to be made in the hands of the assessee and accordingly, after making the said addition, assessed the income at ₹ 1,37,71,670/-. 6. Aggrieved with this addition, assessee preferred

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Bad debts - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether even when a part of debt is written off it can be allowed as bad debt - Held, yes - Whether once a provision for doubtful debt has been debited in P/L a/c and corresponding provision has been credited or reduced from debtor's a/c on assets side

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

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

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

DANA ANAND INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, AKURDI,PUNE

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) for determination of the arm's length\nprice of the international transactions who proposed Nil adjustment. However, the\nAssessing Officer took Rs.1,64,17,30,653/- as variation with respect to the TP\nadjustment. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed the draft assessment order\ndetermining the total income at Rs.338,51,08,520/- by making certain other

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 143(3). In large number of cases we find that the above distinction is not kept in mind by the Assessing Officer. It is for this reason that we have spelt out the difference between the regular assessment and the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B.” 22. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also referred to following decisions wherein

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) vii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) viii) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 45 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 29. We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing any corroborative material

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

transferring in his name\nagainst the alleged sum given as advance.\n7. The ld.CIT(A) called for the remand report from the\nAssessing Officer on various issues mainly regarding the proper\nsanction u/s.151 of the Act, supply of correct reasons recorded,\nDIN not mentioned on the body of the assessment order and\nafter duly considering the comments of the assessee