250 (SC); (iv) CIT v. Continuum Wind Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd.

PUSPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE, PUNE

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

…tics Pvt. Ltd., 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad) (Against which the SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC); 6 CIT vs. Continuum Wind Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., 430 ITR 52 (Mad); (v) PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd., 425 ITR 700 (Bom.); (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); (vii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 9. However, a change in law has been brought about the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a non obstante clause and an Expl…

DHUMAL INDUSTRIES, ,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.993 & 994/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dhumal Industries, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. E-36, D Road, Midc, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aacfd0528N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.05.2019 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.993/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Are Stated Herein.

…cs Pvt. Ltd., 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad) (Against which the SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Continuum Wind Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., 430 ITR 52 (Mad); (v) PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd., 425 ITR 700 (Bom.); (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); (vii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 10. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd. (supra) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Cour…

DHUMAL INDUSTRIES, ,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.993 & 994/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dhumal Industries, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. E-36, D Road, Midc, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aacfd0528N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.05.2019 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.993/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Are Stated Herein.

…cs Pvt. Ltd., 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad) (Against which the SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Continuum Wind Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., 430 ITR 52 (Mad); (v) PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd., 425 ITR 700 (Bom.); (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); (vii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 10. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd. (supra) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Cour…

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR BUILDER MUMBAI REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

…cs Pvt. Ltd., 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad) (Against which the SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Continuum Wind Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., 430 ITR 52 (Mad); (v) PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd., 425 ITR 700 (Bom.); (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); (vii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 17. The fact that the respondent-assessee company had not earned any exempt income is evident from the material on record, therefore, for adjudication this…

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

…cs Pvt. Ltd., 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad) (Against which the SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Continuum Wind Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., 430 ITR 52 (Mad); (v) PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd., 425 ITR 700 (Bom.); (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); (vii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 17. The fact that the respondent-assessee company had not earned any exempt income is evident from the material on record, therefore, for adjudication this…

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

…cs Pvt. Ltd., 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad) (Against which the SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Continuum Wind Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., 430 ITR 52 (Mad); (v) PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd., 425 ITR 700 (Bom.); (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); (vii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 17. The fact that the respondent-assessee company had not earned any exempt income is evident from the material on record, therefore, for adjudication this…

BABANRAO DAGDU SHELKE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6 (2),, PUNE

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.1404/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Babanrao Dagdu Shelke, Vs. Ito, Ward- 6(2), Pune. Flat No.08, Ganesh Gaytri Apt. 291, Somwar Peth, Pune-411011. Pan : Arxps0079D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 25.06.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of Case & In Law The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Dismissing Appeal Of Appellant Without Serving Notice’S Of Hearing As Mentioned In Appellate Order. 2. On Facts & Circumstances Of Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,86,017/- U/S 14A When No Exempt Income Is Earned By Appellant. 3. On Facts & Circumstances Of Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs 3,86,017/- U/S 14A When No Expenditure Was Incurred By Appellant For Earning Any Exempt Income.

…cs Pvt. Ltd., 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad) (Against which the SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Continuum Wind Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., 430 ITR 52 (Mad); (v) PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd., 425 ITR 700 (Bom.); (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); (vii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 8. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd. (supra) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court…

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTAMT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.775/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.758/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......Cross Objector बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019

…cs Pvt. Ltd., 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad) (Against which the SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Continuum Wind Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., 430 ITR 52 (Mad); (v) PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd., 425 ITR 700 (Bom.); (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); (vi) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.) 22. In the light of above legal position, we do not find any illegality in the finding of ld. CIT(A) in holding that provisions of section 14A have no applic…

MAGARPATTA TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2945/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd., 13, Megaspace, Sholapur Bazar Road, Off East Street, Camp, Pune-411001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabcm2461K बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-14, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Sakharam Sable Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 9, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 30.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “A) The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.3,86,352/- On Account Of Disallowance U/S 14A Read With Rule- 8(D), While The Appellant Company Has Not Received Any Sum By Way Of Exempt Income. Further, The Appellant Company Has Not Made Any Additional Investments Generating Exempt Income During The Year. The Company Has Not Utilized Any Borrowed Funds For Investments. On The Similar Facts, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Deleted The Disallowance For A.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12. The Same Has Been Upheld By Itat (Pune Bench) For A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, In The Light Of Various Judicial Decisions, This Disallowance Being Unwarranted Needs Cancellation. B) The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Modify, Expand The Ground(S) Of Appeal & Lay/Produce The Evidence(S) At The Time Of Hearing.”

…cs Pvt. Ltd., 80 taxmann.com 221 (Mad) (Against which the SLP filed by the Department was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Chettinad Logistics P. Ltd., 95 taxmann.com 250 (SC); (iv) CIT vs. Continuum Wind Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., 430 ITR 52 (Mad); (v) PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd., 425 ITR 700 (Bom.); (vi) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); (vi) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 9. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd. (supra) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court…