ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

transfer of all significant risk and rewards of ownership of goods to buyer. The amount recognized as sale is exclusive of GST, interest and Dharmada, if any, charged in invoice Sales are net of VAT/GST. Sale is net of goods returns, if any. 14.2 The above accounting policy followed by the appellant regarding the recognition of revenue clearly suggests that

M/S. A B KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.894/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ab Knowledge Systems, 406, Lunkad Sky Station, Viman Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aarfa5025E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 7(3), Pune

undisclosed sources and added back to the total income of assessee. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee explained that undertaking under STPI dealt in consultancy and designing; whereas SEZ unit dealt in knowledge based software, income from which was claimed as exempt under section 10AA of the Act. The total earnings from STPI unit were about ₹ 1.08 crores

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

undisclosed financial transactions between assessee and its parent company and were not even known to the other JV partner TELCO. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had disclosed cost of TPA transaction and paid taxes in 2006, but major part of the income was not offered to tax on the belief that the time limit laid down

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

undisclosed financial transactions between assessee and its parent company and were not even known to the other JV partner TELCO. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee had disclosed cost of TPA transaction and paid taxes in 2006, but major part of the income was not offered to tax on the belief that the time limit laid down

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

undisclosed investment on purchase of lands. 49. It is also important to significant note that even the vendors of the land in the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act had only confirmed the receipt of the on-money to the extent of Rs.11,94,19,700/- altogether. They nowhere stated that they received on-money consideration from the respondent

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

undisclosed income of the assessee brought into books in the form of unsecured loans. Therefore, mere statement of 36 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 the assessee cannot form the basis to make addition in the assessment under 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 23. Now, next question that is required to be considered

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT. ASHADEVI SUSHIL AGARWAL,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

undisclosed income of Rs. 4.15 crore for the purpose of her computation of income for AY. 2008- 09, no separate addition on this account is required even on protective basis as held by the AO in his assessment order. The separate addition of Rs. 4.15 crore made by the AO on protective basis is therefore, deleted. 9.2 As regards

MRS. ASHADEVI SUSHIL AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of Assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

undisclosed income of Rs. 4.15 crore for the purpose of her computation of income for AY. 2008- 09, no separate addition on this account is required even on protective basis as held by the AO in his assessment order. The separate addition of Rs. 4.15 crore made by the AO on protective basis is therefore, deleted. 9.2 As regards

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

undisclosed income as share capital. However, Sec 56(2)(viib) presumes even a capital receipt as income but that is applicable w.e.f 01.04.2013 i.e. AY 2013-14 and not to AY 2011-12. d) There is no provision under Income Tax Act fixing share premium. Share premium is supported by share allotment letter and resolution passed by shareholders

DCIT CIRCLE-13, PUNE vs. SHRI AJAY BHALCHANDRA PATHAK, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1890/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Dcit, Circle-13, Shri Ajay Bhalchandra Pathak, Pune. Vs. 35, Lic Colony, Parvati, Pune Satara Road, Parvati, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aarpp 6124 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Pune’S Order Dated 30.09.2019 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)- 2/Acit Hq Ii/Pn/209/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

price was renegotiated and amount was received by the appellant in August 2010. /Is such FC-TRC is submitted to Authorised dealers of RBI i.e. Bank of Maharashtra on 20th October 2010 and on receipt of its consent shares have been physically transferred to the investor i.e. Core Objects Inc by signing the physical share transfer form of which copy

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain. The authorities held that the assessee had not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in an unknown company worth Rs.5/- had jumped to Rs.485/- in no time. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there

SHRI JANARDAN R KAPSE, NASHIK,NASHIK vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

price of the company was fixed at Rs.45 lakhs. It was further stated that assessee had received Rs.5 lakhs by cheque from Prakash Laddha and her husband had received Rs.5 lakhs cheque and further Prakash Laddha had issued post dated cheques for the balance amount to the assessee which could not be encashed. In view of the aforesaid facts, notice

MRS. ARUNA J KAPSE, NASHIK,NASHIK vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

price of the company was fixed at Rs.45 lakhs. It was further stated that assessee had received Rs.5 lakhs by cheque from Prakash Laddha and her husband had received Rs.5 lakhs cheque and further Prakash Laddha had issued post dated cheques for the balance amount to the assessee which could not be encashed. In view of the aforesaid facts, notice

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANGLI CIRCLE,, SANGLI vs. ANAND DEVELOPERS, SANGLI

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

income tax Act, 1961. 5. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of the appeal at the time of proceedings before the Hon. Tribunal which may please be granted

ANAND DEVELOPERS,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SANGLI

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

income tax Act, 1961. 5. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of the appeal at the time of proceedings before the Hon. Tribunal which may please be granted

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

transfer of land and ii) building as part of the business income instead of capital gains, applying a higher tax rate applicable to the business income iii) instead of capital gains Treating rental income from these assets as business income iv) as against Income from House Property 7.1. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

transfer of land and ii) building as part of the business income instead of capital gains, applying a higher tax rate applicable to the business income iii) instead of capital gains Treating rental income from these assets as business income iv) as against Income from House Property 7.1. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

income represented by any addition made in conformity with the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained 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

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

income represented by any addition made in conformity with the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained 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