M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

price determined by TPO. Then, our attention was drawn to Instruction No.3/2016, dated 10.03.2016, wherein it is clearly provided that the Assessing Officer has to provide an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer before recording his satisfaction in three situations mentioned in the said Circular i.e. before making reference to the TPO. In this regard, the Ld. AR referred

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

price determined by TPO. Then, our attention was drawn to Instruction No.3/2016, dated 10.03.2016, wherein it is clearly provided that the Assessing Officer has to provide an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer before recording his satisfaction in three situations mentioned in the said Circular i.e. before making reference to the TPO. In this regard, the Ld. AR referred

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

price determined by TPO. Then, our attention was drawn to Instruction No.3/2016, dated 10.03.2016, wherein it is clearly provided that the Assessing Officer has to provide an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer before recording his satisfaction in three situations mentioned in the said Circular i.e. before making reference to the TPO. In this regard, the Ld. AR referred

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

price determined by TPO. Then, our attention was drawn to Instruction No.3/2016, dated 10.03.2016, wherein it is clearly provided that the Assessing Officer has to provide an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer before recording his satisfaction in three situations mentioned in the said Circular i.e. before making reference to the TPO. In this regard, the Ld. AR referred

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

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

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

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP ,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer\" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in\nthe Explanation to section 92CA.]\n(2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of\ntwo years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought\nto be revised was passed.\n(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, apart from the profits of Rs.3,58,69,978/- arrived at by deduction of cost of acquisition of Rs.4,94,30,022/- from the sale consideration sated in the sale deed of Rs.8,53,00,000/-. 8. The Assessing Officer also received information from the ACIT, CC, Kolhapur that during the course

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

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

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, apart from the profits of Rs.3,58,69,978/- arrived at by deduction of cost of acquisition of Rs.4,94,30,022/- from the sale consideration sated in the sale deed of Rs.8,53,00,000/-. 8. The Assessing Officer also received information from the ACIT, CC, Kolhapur that during the course

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

price of the scrip was "artificially inflated, engineered and rigged to a certain level and the beneficiary will reap a huge profit in guise of LTCG". Further, the assessing officer held that the appellant had been converting the unaccounted/black money into accounted money by transacting in the scrip in question. The assessing officer also held that the transactions in shares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

price of the scrip was "artificially inflated, engineered and rigged to a certain level and the beneficiary will reap a huge profit in guise of LTCG". Further, the assessing officer held that the appellant had been converting the unaccounted/black money into accounted money by transacting in the scrip in question. The assessing officer also held that the transactions in shares

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

price of the scrip was "artificially inflated, engineered and rigged to a certain level and the beneficiary will reap a huge profit in guise of LTCG". Further, the assessing officer held that the appellant had been converting the unaccounted/black money into accounted money by transacting in the scrip in question. The assessing officer also held that the transactions in shares

MR. ABRAR FAKIRMOHMMAD SHAIKH,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.208/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Abrar Fakirmohmmad Vs. Ito (International Shaikh, Taxation), Nashik. At Manakeshwar, North Solapur, Tal. Bhoom, Barshi, Solapur- 413213. Pan : Chfps0191E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Prashant Gadekar Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual & Non-Resident Indian In Terms Of Income-Tax Purpose. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed On 05.07.2014 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.1,85,740/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, No Scrutiny Assessment Was Made. Subsequently, On Receipt Of The Information That The Appellant Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.1,20,40,000/- With Solapur District Co- Operative Central Bank, The Assessing Officer Formed An Opinion That The Income Had Escaped Assessment To Tax. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Had Issued A Notice U/S 148 On 31.03.2021. In Response To Said Notice U/S 148, The Appellant Filed The Return Of Income On 03.04.2021 Disclosing Same Income As Declared In The Original Return Of Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 20.12.2022 Passed U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs.1,23,98,740/-. While Doing So, The Assessing Officer Brought To Tax A Sum Of Rs.1,21,80,000/- Being The Amount Of Cash Deposits In The Bank I.E. Cash Deposits Of Rs.1,20,40,000/- Made With Solapur District Co-

transfer pricing adjustments have been made under sub-section (3) of section 92CA of the Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) is required to forward a draft assessment order to the eligible assessee, if he proposes to make any variation in the income or loss returned which is prejudicial to the interest of such assessee. Such eligible assessee with respect

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

money has been paid for purchasing another agricultural land within the prescribed time limit provided u/s 54B of the Act. However as the purchase deed was not registered in the name of assessee within prescribed time limit u/s 54B of the Act, Ld. AO denied the claim made u/s 54B and made addition

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

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

transferred from the ITO, Ward 2(2), Jalgaon to DCIT, Circle – 2, Jalgaon (now Circle – 1, Jalgaon) on 08.04.2019 as per jurisdiction. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 20.05.2019 along with questionnaire asking the assessee to file certain details regarding the scrutiny assessment. Second notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 31.10.2019 requesting the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. NATHMAL RUPCHAND JAIN, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

transferring the money through hawala to persons in Delhi also does not seem plausible. The cash was deposited in months of April and May while the purchase from M/s Rishabh Trading Company was done in October and moreover why would an assessee first show bogus sales and then to offset the same undertake bogus purchases and generate cash for making

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. RAKESH MOTILAL SHARMA,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2123 & 2124/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15

price could not be held as bogus or in-genuine. The appellant further in the detailed submission had refuted the various arguments given along with reasons by the AO for treating the income from Long term capital gains as unexplained credit U/s. 68 of the Act, thereby analyzing the AO‟s arguments and the reasons for refuting the same