DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD., (FORMERLY: BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LTD.,),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.356/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

TDS provisions or not. The CIT(A) further held that the proceedings under section 201(1A) and 271C of the Act were separate proceedings and he accepted the view of Addl.CIT that it was not necessary for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 271C of the Act that an order under section 201(1

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

1)(va) of the Act. Further, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pronounced subsequent to the passing of the assessment order, therefore, there is no error on the order of the Assessing Officer so as to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 10 11. So far as the applicability of provisions of section 269SS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

TDS provisions. There is no dispute about it. It is not known as to why assessee did not allot shares to the supplier of the know-how, i.e. MBAG and instead, allotted the shares to the DBAG, the flagship company? Assessee could not demonstrate before us specifying the reasons as to why the assessee did not allot shares

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

TDS provisions. There is no dispute about it. It is not known as to why assessee did not allot shares to the supplier of the know-how, i.e. MBAG and instead, allotted the shares to the DBAG, the flagship company? Assessee could not demonstrate before us specifying the reasons as to why the assessee did not allot shares

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

1)(vii) of the Act nor liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194J of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to disallow the A&M expenses of Rs.2,47,13,051/-. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to 15 allow the A&M expenses

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ENTERPRISEDB SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 989/Pun/2023 & Co No. 008/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

253(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] challenges the DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/ S/250/2023- 24/1054358649(1) dt. 14/07/2023 passed u/s 250 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘NFAC/CIT(A)’] anent to assessment year 2017-18 [in short ‘AY’] which in turn arisen out of order of assessment dt. 29/09/2019 passed

OPULENT AUTO CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. TDS, WARD-2, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Hon’Ble Vice-

TDS returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

OPULENT AUTO CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. TDS, WARD-2, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Hon’Ble Vice-

TDS returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

OPULENT AUTO CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. TDS, WARD-2, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Hon’Ble Vice-

TDS returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

OPULENT AUTO CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. TDS WARD-2, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Hon’Ble Vice-

TDS returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

OPULENT AUTO CARE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. TDS, WARD-2, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Hon’Ble Vice-

TDS returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

TDS violates deduction neutrality non-discrimination clause in DTAA as there is no similar bar for residents as per Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB). 3.8 Without prejudice to above, the learned Assessing Officer /DRP erred in not restricting the addition u/s.40(a)(i) to Rs.5,08,44,199/- (being the difference between Rs.9,44,43,764/- less Rs.4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. TETRA PAK INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

TDS violates deduction neutrality non-discrimination clause in DTAA as there is no similar bar for residents as per Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB). 3.8 Without prejudice to above, the learned Assessing Officer /DRP erred in not restricting the addition u/s.40(a)(i) to Rs.5,08,44,199/- (being the difference between Rs.9,44,43,764/- less Rs.4