PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

3 of the Hon'ble SB The additional income tax under S. 115-0 of the Act is referred to as "tax on distributed profits" commonly referred to as "Dividend Distribution Tax". It is a tax on "distributed profits" and not a tax on "dividend distributed". Further, the non obstante clause in S. 115-0 "notwithstanding anything contained in this

M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

14A of the Act on dividend income. Also, the G&B HC decision and the G&B SC decision have not laid down any principle contrary to those laid down by the Hon'ble SC in Tata Tea decision and both the decisions operate in different fields. As discussed above, since the Tata Tea decision of Hon'ble SC specifically

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

14A on estimated basis. 3. The DRP erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the ESOP cost on the basis of the special Bench of ITAT Bangalore decision in the case of Biocon Limited even though the issue has not reached finality and being notional. 4 4. The DRP has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. IGATE COMPUTER SYSTEM LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

14A on estimated basis. 3. The DRP erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the ESOP cost on the basis of the special Bench of ITAT Bangalore decision in the case of Biocon Limited even though the issue has not reached finality and being notional. 4 4. The DRP has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

14A(2). Since the order of the ld. CIT(A) is based on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases referred (supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal no.2 filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 15. Ground

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

TDS statement filing 7. Deduction/Exemption u/s 10A/10AA 8. Income from house property 9. Reduction in profit due to ICDS 10. International transaction(s) 11. Loss from currency fluctuations 03. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26/02/2022 determining total income of Rs.455,25,53,250/- (Rs.722

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

14A read with rule 8D disallowance, back to the Assessing Officer in the following terms: “4. Next comes the first substantive issue of Section 10AA deduction disallowance of Rs.1,66,90,42,654/- made by the lower authorities invoking Section 10 AA(9) r.w.s. 80IA (10) of the Act thereby alleging it to have earned more than the “ordinary” profits

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

14A read with rule 8D disallowance, back to the Assessing Officer in the following terms: “4. Next comes the first substantive issue of Section 10AA deduction disallowance of Rs.1,66,90,42,654/- made by the lower authorities invoking Section 10 AA(9) r.w.s. 80IA (10) of the Act thereby alleging it to have earned more than the “ordinary” profits

CUMMINS INDIA LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

TDS claim in original return. The assessee had entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises, for which the Assessing Officer made reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(1) of the Act to determine the arm's length price of international transactions. The TPO in order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act proposed

SHREE GARUDA PLANT PRODUCTS LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, NASHIK

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.492/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik. Pan: Aaacg 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishint Gandhi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 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)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 19.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Nashik ["The Cit (A)" For Short] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Nashik, ["The Ao" For Short] Which Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Without Affording A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Invoking Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Act, Whereby A Disallowance Of Rs.12,81,831/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Appellant.

14A is called for. Accordingly Ground No.2 of the Assessee is allowed. ITA No.492/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products Ltd.[A] Ground Number 3 - Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) : 3. As per the Assessment order, the assessee has received Loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from Trenton Investment Company Pvt Ltd and Rs.11,12,387/- from

CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

14A of the Act. 45. The issue in grounds of appeal No.9.1 and 9.2 against claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act is similar to grounds of appeal No.8.1 and 8.2 raised in assessment year 2010-11. Following the same parity of reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow weighted deduction under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

14A of the Act. 45. The issue in grounds of appeal No.9.1 and 9.2 against claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act is similar to grounds of appeal No.8.1 and 8.2 raised in assessment year 2010-11. Following the same parity of reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow weighted deduction under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

14A of the Act. 45. The issue in grounds of appeal No.9.1 and 9.2 against claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act is similar to grounds of appeal No.8.1 and 8.2 raised in assessment year 2010-11. Following the same parity of reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow weighted deduction under section

CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

14A of the Act. 45. The issue in grounds of appeal No.9.1 and 9.2 against claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act is similar to grounds of appeal No.8.1 and 8.2 raised in assessment year 2010-11. Following the same parity of reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow weighted deduction under section

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved