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

36,450/-. 5 Disallowance of sales and promotion expenditure of Rs.2,90,94,637/-. (j) Disallowance of Corporate Guarantee Commission of Rs.1,20,29,793/-. (k) Disallowance of deduction u/s 10AA of Rs.47,46,67,962/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order held that

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

iv)(b) of DTAA. Further example 6 and 9 given in the MOU, training imparted to staff was considered to satisfy ‘make available’ condition. Accordingly, he held that payments made towards training programmme were liable to be taxed under Income Tax Act and DTAA and he placed reliance on various decisions. In view thereof, he held that payments

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

iv)(b) of DTAA. Further example 6 and 9 given in the MOU, training imparted to staff was considered to satisfy ‘make available’ condition. Accordingly, he held that payments made towards training programmme were liable to be taxed under Income Tax Act and DTAA and he placed reliance on various decisions. In view thereof, he held that payments

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

iv)(b) of DTAA. Further example 6 and 9 given in the MOU, training imparted to staff was considered to satisfy ‘make available’ condition. Accordingly, he held that payments made towards training programmme were liable to be taxed under Income Tax Act and DTAA and he placed reliance on various decisions. In view thereof, he held that payments

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

iv)(b) of DTAA. Further example 6 and 9 given in the MOU, training imparted to staff was considered to satisfy ‘make available’ condition. Accordingly, he held that payments made towards training programmme were liable to be taxed under Income Tax Act and DTAA and he placed reliance on various decisions. In view thereof, he held that payments

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

TDS certificates / 15G forms for verification. The assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The invocation of 6 CO No.43/PUN/2025 provisions of section 115BBE of the Act was also challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 8. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee

ARMEKA FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CPC- TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am

IV / *s !U Ib t A. Y: 2013-14 to 2015-16 Armeka Financial Consultants P.Ltd., 2. A combined perusal of the assessee’s instant three case files as well as the Revenue’s vehement contentions indicate that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed herein challenges correctness of CIT(A)’s action not condoning 1815 days

ARMEKA FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CPC- TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am

IV / *s !U Ib t A. Y: 2013-14 to 2015-16 Armeka Financial Consultants P.Ltd., 2. A combined perusal of the assessee’s instant three case files as well as the Revenue’s vehement contentions indicate that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed herein challenges correctness of CIT(A)’s action not condoning 1815 days

ARMEKA FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT, CPC- TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am

IV / *s !U Ib t A. Y: 2013-14 to 2015-16 Armeka Financial Consultants P.Ltd., 2. A combined perusal of the assessee’s instant three case files as well as the Revenue’s vehement contentions indicate that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed herein challenges correctness of CIT(A)’s action not condoning 1815 days

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Bajaj Finance Limited Pcit-3, Pune 3Rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Vs. Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aabcb1518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026

TDS in Revised Return iii. High Creditors/liabilities iv. Reduction of Income in Revised Return & Claim of Refund v. Refund Claim vi. Unsecured Loans vii. Expenses Incurred for Earning Exempt Income viii. Taxability of business liability written off u/s 41 or any other section ix. Foreign Outward Remittance x. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xi. Deduction from Total Income under

COL R D NIKAM SAINIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE,, SATARA

The appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.794/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Col R D Nikam Sainiksahakari The Asst. Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Satara Circle, Chh. Shivaji Maharaj Circle, Satara. Powai Naka, Satara – 415001. Pan: Aabas 2355 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Renuka Ghatge – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Isdirected Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune Dated 28.02.2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Form Number 36 Of Appeal Memo: “1. The Learned Assessing Office Is Not Justified In Adding The Liabilities & Capital Receipts Credited To General Reserve Totaling To Rs.6,73,807/- To The Total Income & Addition Should Be Deleted.

iv) The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a cooperative bank and as per Id. A.O. the assessee had not created reserve/provision towards bad and doubtful debts before making any deduction u/s 36(l)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the nomenclature given to such a Reserve/provision was different and the ?ame is shown

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

36(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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS credit and hence the carry forward of MAT credit of erstwhile company has to be allowed to the amalgamated company. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that section 72A, like some other provisions distinctly dealing with the effects of amalgamation, exclusively applies to accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS credit and hence the carry forward of MAT credit of erstwhile company has to be allowed to the amalgamated company. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that section 72A, like some other provisions distinctly dealing with the effects of amalgamation, exclusively applies to accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

iv)The term „consideration‟ which has been used in section 35AB of the Act is understood to have a wider meaning than „expenditure‟. (v) The term „consideration‟ includes payment in kind. (vi)Without prejudice to the above, even the term „expenditure‟ would include payments in kind. (vii) Meaning of the term „lump sum‟ as used in section 35AB also includes

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

TDS), who held that the assessee was a defaulter for not deducting tax at source from the remittances made for purchase of the software as the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act were attracted and the payment made by the assessee was in the nature of royalty on which tax ought to have been deducted

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"

iv) Misc. expenses written off 5,037,402 v) Leave Equalization reserve 2,02,71,804 vi) Provision for gratuity 7,82,750 vii) Cash payment 40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods

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"

iv) Misc. expenses written off 5,037,402 v) Leave Equalization reserve 2,02,71,804 vi) Provision for gratuity 7,82,750 vii) Cash payment 40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods

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:

36,722 TNMM spares parts & consumables 2. Purchase of finished goods 27,17,21,004 TNMM 3. Payment of royalty 1,55,68,463 CUP 4. Payment of Global License 16,69,862 CUP fees 5. Reimbursement of managerial 1,43,02,043 CUP remuneration Total 41,08,98,094 6 4. The appellant company also submitted TP study report