RIETER INDIA PVT.LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rieter India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Gat No.768/2, Circle-5, Shindewadi-Bhor Road, Pune Village Wing, Taluka Khandala, District Satara – 412 801 Pan : Aaacr3556P Appellant Respondent

801 PAN : AAACR3556P Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri M.P. Lohia Revenue by Shri Anurag Shivastava Date of hearing 26-04-2022 Date of pronouncement 28-04-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 25-10-2018 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

RIETER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2371/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

801 PAN : AAACR3556P Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri M.P. Lohia Revenue by Shri Sangram Gaikwad Date of hearing 03-03-2021 Date of pronouncement 04-03-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 24-08-2017 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C

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

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.15/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Carraro India Pvt. Ltd., B-2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon, Pune-412210. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaacc5292M …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Amol Kamal सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Assessee Raised 16 Grounds In Its Appeal. Grounds No.2 To 11 Relate To The Tp Adjustments. Grounds No.1 & 12 To 16 Relate To Other Non-Tp/General/Consequential Issues. 3. Referring To Various Tp Related Grounds In This Appeal, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Apparent Typographical Mistakes In The Pli-Related Calculations Are Corrected & The Benefits Of +/-5% Available U/S 92C(2) Of The Act Are Granted, The Assessee Is At Home & No Addition

Transfer Pricing Officer, the Assessing Officer made a draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 30/11/2009 by incorporating the said adjustments. In the draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer proposed addition of Rs.4,73,14,991/-. In the said order, other Non-TP additions on account of (i) Prior period expenditure

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

transferred to the assessee only on 24.08.2013 and price of each equity share is priced at Rs.10/- whereas the assessee has paid only Rs.8/-. The AO has also examined the report submitted by Mr. BVS Koteeshwara Rao and Smt. Vijayalakshmi and noted that Mr. BVS Koteeswara Rao and Smt. Vijayalakshmi have sold 3,04,500 shares

KRISH WINES,JALGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1,, JALGAON

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

price and MRP of various types of liquor\nalong with the working of GP separately for country liquor and the IMFL. In view\nof said facts, I have left with no option but to adopt reasonable average G.P of\n10.00% in absence of separate details thereof.”\n5. After deducting the GP already shown by the assessee at Rs.79

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

transferring the jurisdiction of the person, the transferee Income-\ntax Authorities as mentioned in section 116 of the Act shall exercise all\nthe powers and perform the functions as stipulated in the Act in respect\nof all the proceedings which may be commenced after the date of such\norder in respect of any year and such power includes passing

NARENDRA BHIMSEN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 9(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

price. Your observation that EPIL has allowed „excess period to pay‟ is not correct. In fact there is no defined policy of EPIL regarding period for payment. The same differs from customer to customer and changes from time to time as and when required in the best interest of the company. In today‟s challenging business atmosphere, rigid stands with

NITIN NARAYAN SHEWALE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (1),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

price as the full value of consideration and the fair market value of the property as on 01-04-1981 at Rs.16.35/- per sq. ft. as the unindexed cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer (AO) tweaked both the components in the computation of capital gain. He observed that the stamp value of the land in question was more than

NITIN NARAYAN SHEWALE , LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. CHANDRABHAGA E. SHEWALE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (1),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

price as the full value of consideration and the fair market value of the property as on 01-04-1981 at Rs.16.35/- per sq. ft. as the unindexed cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer (AO) tweaked both the components in the computation of capital gain. He observed that the stamp value of the land in question was more than

SMT. ASHA NARAYAN SHEWALE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (2),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

price as the full value of consideration and the fair market value of the property as on 01-04-1981 at Rs.16.35/- per sq. ft. as the unindexed cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer (AO) tweaked both the components in the computation of capital gain. He observed that the stamp value of the land in question was more than

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

prices of Equity shares of M/s. Achal Investment Ltd. Ld. AO also observed that assessee has purchased the Equity shares of M/s. Achal Investment Ltd. through offline mode on 12.11.2012. Further, there was no response from the side of assessee to the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. Ld. AO concluded that the long term capital gain shown

AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

transfer it to party / beneficiaries bank account. For doing so, e used to get a commission income in cash from party @ 0.10 paisa per 100 Rupees of cheque amount. Our companies buy the shares ITA No.78/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, (A) afterthe prices of scripts are raised through artificial; synchronized trading." 12.3 Further

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"

transfer fees. 12.3 Further, on perusal of the bank statements, we find that the assessee actually received higher sum than the amount specified in the original sale registered deed and paid the same to the Sindh Co-operative Society as per the demand of Sindh Co-operative Housing Society. It is undisputed fact. Therefore, 10 Shri Rajendra L. Agarwal

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

801 (SC), the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,62,84,153/- to the total income of the assessee by observing as under: “9….. The explanation of the assessee has been considered but the same is found not acceptable. The assessee-company is trying to state that Pranav International Ltd., Dubai advanced to the assessee-company at Rs.2

DNYANDEO LAXMAN RAJALE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.80/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dnyandeo Laxman Rajale, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Plot No.349, Growth Centre, Aurangabad. Mahanagar-1, Midc, Waluj, Aurangabad- 431136. Pan : Aaqpr2829E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)- 2, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 29.11.2018 Passed In Case No. Abd/Cit(A)- 2/377/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Denying Section 10(38) Long Term Capital Gains’ Exemption Thereby

price of its shares. The AO has also referred to the statements of various persons, all of whom admitted to be providing accommodation entries with the help of shares of companies including PS IT I&SL. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has identified this as a shell company and further the SEBI has initiated enquiry in the matter. All these

JAYSHREE ASHOK CHOURE,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

price of its shares. The AO has also referred to the statements of various persons, all of whom admitted to be providing accommodation entries with the help of shares of companies including PS IT I&SL. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has identified this as a shell company and further the SEBI has initiated enquiry in the matter. All these

AKSHAY A. CHOURE,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (1),, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1168/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

price of its shares. The AO has also referred to the statements of various persons, all of whom admitted to be providing accommodation entries with the help of companies including PAL. The SEBI suspended share trading activity of this company for various violations. All these facts cumulatively take me to the irresistible conclusion of the non- genuineness of the transaction

RAVI BHASKAR WATTAMWAR,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (1),, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1169/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

price of its shares. The AO has also referred to the statements of various persons, all of whom admitted to be providing accommodation entries with the help of shares of companies including PS IT I&SL. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has identified this as a shell company and further the SEBI has initiated enquiry in the matter. All these

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

801 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT, 198 ITR 147 (Ker.), decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P.) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Delhi) confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer that the sundry creditors were bogus