DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. ASHISH JUGALKISHOR BHALA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act. It is seen that the assessee has adopted fair market value of Rs.540/- per share which is not acceptable. The assessee has purchased 1,19,360 shares. Details of such purchase is as under: S.No. Name of the persons from whom you Total Number Value have purchased shares of Metarolls

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

56(2)(x) made by the Assessing Officer, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted both the additions by observing as under :- “5.2 I have gone through the submission of the appellant along with supporting documents submitted during the appellate proceedings as well as during the assessment proceedings before the Ld. AO. The appellant has contested the determination

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

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

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

price is more than the stamp duty value of the property, we find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there is no case for making addition u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC is set aside on this issue and the grounds of appeal No.7

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

56 to 58 of the case law). Relevant extract from the judgement is provided below - "48. After careful consideration of the matter and the written submissions the assessee we are of the view that TPO and the AO is not making an addition of Rs.1,83,73,764/- for the following reasons. II. That the TPO is not correct

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

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

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

x) Smt. Jami Nirmala vs. PCIT, 437 ITR 573 (Orissa). (xi) Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak vs. Union of India, 439 ITR 193 (Orissa). (xii) CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited, 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta). (xiii) PCIT vs. M/s. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd., (8) TMI 1131 (Calcutta). (xiv) PCIT vs. Smt. Daksha Jain, (8) TMI 474 (Rajasthan). (xv) Dr. A. V. Sreekumar