AQUAPHARM CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2631 To 2633/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaeca7014R Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 8, Pune

capital expenditure. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee ITA Nos.2631 to 2633/PUN/2016 4 pointed out that payment to LSR Associates was made against registration charges for registering product before entering UK. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals

AQUAPHARM CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2631 To 2633/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaeca7014R Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 8, Pune

capital expenditure. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee ITA Nos.2631 to 2633/PUN/2016 4 pointed out that payment to LSR Associates was made against registration charges for registering product before entering UK. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals

AQUAPHARM CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2631 To 2633/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaeca7014R Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 8, Pune

capital expenditure. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee ITA Nos.2631 to 2633/PUN/2016 4 pointed out that payment to LSR Associates was made against registration charges for registering product before entering UK. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals

AQUAPHARM CHEMICALS PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2631 To 2633/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 To 2012-13 Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaeca7014R Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 8, Pune

capital expenditure. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee ITA Nos.2631 to 2633/PUN/2016 4 pointed out that payment to LSR Associates was made against registration charges for registering product before entering UK. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the LdCIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of capital loss of Rs. 922 Crores made through a revised return not claimed in its original return ? 5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the LdCIT(A) erred in treating the loss of Rs.922 crores as genuine loss

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the LdCIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of capital loss of Rs. 922 Crores made through a revised return not claimed in its original return ? 5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the LdCIT(A) erred in treating the loss of Rs.922 crores as genuine loss

AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

Gains required thorough examination by the AO. However, prima facie it is seen that the AO erroneously allowed the "Cost of Improvement" of Rs.1.88 crore (indexed) without conducting proper verification. The assessee claimed "Cost of Improvement" on the Capital Asset i.e. Land over a span of ten years (FY 2009-10 to FY 2019-20), although no substantial documentary evidence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE vs. M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1794/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Vishram Developers, 61B/11, Zelum Apartment, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aagfv0995F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Ajay Singh / Deepak Sasar Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg

gain on sale of capital asset should be deposited before date of furnishing return of tax under section 139, in such a situation, section 139 cannot be meant only section 139(1), but it means all sub-sections of section 139 - Held, yes - [Paras 14 and 15] [In favour of assessee] ITO v. Nilima Abhijit Tannu

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

gained from filing 3 Skyline Developers the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone

PRABHAKAR MANJAJI THAKRE vs. PRINCIPOAL C.I.T.-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12

capital gain from this transaction was shown of Rs. 14,68,380/-. However, the assessee claimed the same as exempt u/s 54EC of the Act. In support of his claim, the assessee submitted that a copy of the STDR with SBI for an amount of Rs. 15,46,000/- was furnished. However, the same is not a 6 Prabhakar

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section ,72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, 14[or sub- section (2) of section 73A] or sub-section (1) 15[or sub-section (3)] of section 74, 16 [or sub-section (3) of section 74A] , he may furnish

BARCLAYS SHARED SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED(MERGED WITH BARCLAYS TECHNOLOGY CENTRE INDIA PVT LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, COMPANY CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Barclays Shared Services Private Vs. Acit, Limited (Merged With Barclays Company Circle- Technology Centre India Private Limited 1(2), Chennai Now Known As Barclays Global Service Centre Private Limited, Ground Floor, Wing-3, Cluster A, Eon Free Zone, Midc Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune, Maharashtra 411014 Pan :Aadcr6251L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg Date Of Hearing 08-03-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09-03-2021 आदेश / Order

4) in juxtaposition to sub-section (1) of section 10A, it becomes palpable that the deduction has been provided on proportionate basis on the ‘profits of the business of the undertaking’. In order to be covered within the qualifying amount, it is essential that such amount must answer to the description of ‘profits of the business of the undertaking

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. ADVIK HI-TECH PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1578/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Gat No.357/99, Chakan Talegaon Road, Vill- Kharabwadi, Tal. Khed, Chakan, Pune-410 501 Pan : Aacca3106E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune.

4. Ground No.1 in the assessee‟s appeal pertains to treating short term capital gain in respect of shares of Rs.25,16,273/- as business income. 5. The Assessing Officer has relied on earlier assessment orders in which short term capital gain has been treated as „business income‟. 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee placed reliance

M/S ADVIK HI-TECH PVT LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1578/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Gat No.357/99, Chakan Talegaon Road, Vill- Kharabwadi, Tal. Khed, Chakan, Pune-410 501 Pan : Aacca3106E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune.

4. Ground No.1 in the assessee‟s appeal pertains to treating short term capital gain in respect of shares of Rs.25,16,273/- as business income. 5. The Assessing Officer has relied on earlier assessment orders in which short term capital gain has been treated as „business income‟. 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee placed reliance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 1(1), , PUNE vs. M/S CAPEGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES I LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IGAGE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.41/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1), M/S.Capegemini Technology Pune. Vs Services India Ltd., (Formerly . Known As Igate Global Solutions Ltd., ) Plot No.114, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase- Iii, Midc Sez, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aabcm 4573 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe –Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Appeals For A.Y.2005-06 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order, Dated 09.03.2020 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-1/Dcit Circ.1(1)/77/2013-14/38, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act [In Short “The Act”].

4% and 20% rates were determined for reducing the amount of deduction on account of DTM and onsite activities. 18. The assessee earned income from software development activity in all of its six eligible units. The question which falls for our consideration is as to whether the AO was right in holding that a part of consideration received

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

capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as deduction. 29. On the other hand, ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the expenditure which does not qualify for weighted deduction can be allowed as revenue expenditure either under the provisions of section 35(1)(iv) or u/s 37(1) of the Act. He submits that this issue was covered by the decision

M/S. HONEWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

gains of an eligible business cannot be tinkered with by the Assessing Officer merely because they are more than the ordinary profits or that they are quite high. The existence of substantial or more than ordinary profits by itself does not sufficiently empower the Assessing Officer to disregard them and determine the profits which he may consider to be reasonably

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

gains of an eligible business cannot be tinkered with by the Assessing Officer merely because they are more than the ordinary profits or that they are quite high. The existence of substantial or more than ordinary profits by itself does not sufficiently empower the Assessing Officer to disregard them and determine the profits which he may consider to be reasonably