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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

vii) receipt of\ndesign engineering and testing services; (viii) insite pro\nregistration charges; (ix) user licence fees; (x) receipt of\nwarranty service; and (xi) receipt of training service,\nwith its AE. For the purpose of benchmarking, the\nassessee had aggregated all these transactions as\nrelated to its manufacturing activity and used TNMM as\nthe most appropriate method. The assessee worked

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

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

transfer of such immovable property. 4.4 This section came into the effect om 01.04.2014 as per the finance act 2013. Therefore the section raised by the appellant that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not attracted in her case, is hereby ejected. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the AO has rightly added difference in the computation

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

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

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

vii. Deduction/Exemption u/s.10A/10AA viii. Income from house property ix. Reduction in profit due to ICDS x. International Transaction(s) xi. Loss from currency fluctuations 3. Statutory notices u/s.143(2)/142(1) were duly served upon the assessee along with detailed questionnaire and the assessee made compliance to such notices. Since the assessee had entered into certain international transactions, the Assessing

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

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

9. He accordingly noted that the unsecured loans given by the loan creditors are grossly disproportionate to the annual income disclosed by them. Further, a perusal of the bank accounts of the respective creditors reveals that there were 11 unusual activities involving huge credits in the said bank accounts before the impugned loan transactions. He noted that there

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

9 to Shivchand Parakh, partner of 12/209 to 211 assessee, recorded in response to summons issued u/s. 131 of the IT Act, 1961 on 20.10.2015 Originally, the plots of Makhmalabad were agreed to be sold to M/s Dhananjay Marketing Private Ltd. of Thakkar Group of Nashik vide agreement dt. 25th April 2013. Necessary documents were also executed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

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

vii) of the Act on account of write off on debts by the non-rural branches of the assessee bank. The learned counsel for the assessee explained that the said claim was raised by way of an Additional Ground of Appeal before the CIT(A) vide letter dated 26.08.2008 but the same has not been inadvertently considered

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

9. Ground No.3 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.3,00,87,960/- made by the AO u/s.56(2)(viia) of the Act. The facts anent to this issue are that the assessee purchased 1,00,000 Classic Citi Investments Pvt. Ltd. Equity shares of Diana Buildwell Limited (Diana) from Indiabulls Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. holding 66% Equity shares

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

9. Ground No.3 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.3,00,87,960/- made by the AO u/s.56(2)(viia) of the Act. The facts anent to this issue are that the assessee purchased 1,00,000 Classic Citi Investments Pvt. Ltd. Equity shares of Diana Buildwell Limited (Diana) from Indiabulls Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. holding 66% Equity shares

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA ,PUNE vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

vii) of the Act on account of write off on debts by the non-rural branches of the assessee bank. The learned counsel for the assessee explained that the said claim was raised by way of an Additional Ground of Appeal before the CIT(A) vide letter dated 26.08.2008 but the same has not been inadvertently considered

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price in respect of international transactions reported for the relevant assessment year. Then paragraph 4, along with its sub paragraphs 4.1 to 47 deal with disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in the context of commission exceeding Re. 18.00 crore paid by the Assessee during the relevant assessment year, even though

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR vs. RAFIQ NAIK EXPORTS P LTD., , RATNAGIRI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy./Acit, Circle-1, Vs. Rafiq Naik Exports Private Limited, Kolhapur Plot No.44 To 48, Mirkar Wada Fish, Industry Locality, Ratnagiri – 415 612 Maharashtra Pan : Aagcr9577G Appellant Respondent

9 & CO No.11/PUN/2023 Rafiq Naik Exports Private Limited raised before the TPO remained uncontroverted. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that this company is engaged in the business of manufacture, marine farming and sale of marine products. Obviously, the assessee is not into any manufacture or marine farming. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) rightly excluded it from

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

prices. At many places only figures have been mentioned without noting whether these are amounts received or paid. I have recorded my statement for such amounts purely on my memory and so they could be vise-versa also. The dates recorded in the Diaries may differ with the dates recorded in the regular books of accounts or the dates