RAM LAXMANRAO MITKARI,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

45(5) after clause-(b) shall not apply.” 3. Mr. Shah vehemently argued in support of the assessee’s pleadings that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in taxing the impugned interest income. We find that this tribunal recent coordinate bench decision in ITA 6 ITA.No.574/PUN/2020 Sh Ram Laxmanrao Mitkari, Latur. No.1012/PUN/2017 Basweshwar

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SKODA AUTO A.S.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.787/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 154 of the Act for assessment year 2009-10 that the total income of royalty / FTS received/receivable from SAIPL was to be offered to taxation in assessment year 2010-11 and the same came to ₹ 29,45,65,497/-. The Assessing Officer also tabulated the amount as per TDS

GOKHALE CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 45(5A) which deems the consideration received or accruing only in the year of 2 completion and therefore the liability to deduct would arise in the year of completion of project. 3. The ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of DCIT(TDS

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons: “1. Deemed International Transactions 2. Large value of international transactions 3. Transactions with Company whose Registration has been Cancelled by MCA 4. Duty Drawback 5. Lower amount disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in ITR (Part A-OI) in comparison

RAMESH HARIBHAU GAWALI,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) in the assessment order, the dispute raised in the grounds of appeal is only in respect of disallowance of Rs.1,45,11,384/- relating to subcontract payments made to six parties as listed in Para 4.1 hereinabove. The prime contention of the appellant in this regard is that cheque for remittance of TDS

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

45,12,630. Corporate Tax Grounds: Disallowance under section 10AA of the Act: 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO, erred in reducing the deduction claimed under section 10AA of the Act by INR 1,95,31,01,681 by invoking the provisions of section 10AA(9) read with section 80IA

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

45,12,630. Corporate Tax Grounds: Disallowance under section 10AA of the Act: 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO, erred in reducing the deduction claimed under section 10AA of the Act by INR 1,95,31,01,681 by invoking the provisions of section 10AA(9) read with section 80IA

M/S VINCHURKAR DIAGNOSTICS P LTD,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

45,600/- 26-12-2013 18-01-2021 19-01 2021 2552 days 13/10012312 Q2 2 ITA 701 to 703/PUN/2021 Vinchurkar Diagnostics A.Y. 2013-14 (B) I.T.A. No. 702/PUN/2021 – Q3/26Q Appeal FY and Form Demand Date of order Date of receipt Date of filing Delay in No. & quarter raised u/s u/s 200A of intimation of appeal filing 200A/234E

M/S VINCHURKAR DIAGNOSTICS P LTD,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

45,600/- 26-12-2013 18-01-2021 19-01 2021 2552 days 13/10012312 Q2 2 ITA 701 to 703/PUN/2021 Vinchurkar Diagnostics A.Y. 2013-14 (B) I.T.A. No. 702/PUN/2021 – Q3/26Q Appeal FY and Form Demand Date of order Date of receipt Date of filing Delay in No. & quarter raised u/s u/s 200A of intimation of appeal filing 200A/234E

M/S VINCHURKAR DIAGNOSTICS P LTD,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

45,600/- 26-12-2013 18-01-2021 19-01 2021 2552 days 13/10012312 Q2 2 ITA 701 to 703/PUN/2021 Vinchurkar Diagnostics A.Y. 2013-14 (B) I.T.A. No. 702/PUN/2021 – Q3/26Q Appeal FY and Form Demand Date of order Date of receipt Date of filing Delay in No. & quarter raised u/s u/s 200A of intimation of appeal filing 200A/234E

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

TDS was deducted out of salary paid to the employees, tax due to the Department has been paid and there is no merit in the contention of Revenue authorities. He further pointed out that the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in ADIT Vs. M/s. Mark & Spencer Reliance India P. Ltd. (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High

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

TDS was deducted out of salary paid to the employees, tax due to the Department has been paid and there is no merit in the contention of Revenue authorities. He further pointed out that the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in ADIT Vs. M/s. Mark & Spencer Reliance India P. Ltd. (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High

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

TDS was deducted out of salary paid to the employees, tax due to the Department has been paid and there is no merit in the contention of Revenue authorities. He further pointed out that the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in ADIT Vs. M/s. Mark & Spencer Reliance India P. Ltd. (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High

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

TDS was deducted out of salary paid to the employees, tax due to the Department has been paid and there is no merit in the contention of Revenue authorities. He further pointed out that the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in ADIT Vs. M/s. Mark & Spencer Reliance India P. Ltd. (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High

M/S. ELKAY SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS , GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

45) that the assessee had filed appeal on 19.12.2018. The assessee has enclosed copy of the order under section Elkay Spirits Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS

M/S. ELKAY SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

45) that the assessee had filed appeal on 19.12.2018. The assessee has enclosed copy of the order under section Elkay Spirits Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS

M/S. ELKAY SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. SSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS , GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

45) that the assessee had filed appeal on 19.12.2018. The assessee has enclosed copy of the order under section Elkay Spirits Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS

M/S. ELKAY SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS , GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

45) that the assessee had filed appeal on 19.12.2018. The assessee has enclosed copy of the order under section Elkay Spirits Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS