M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

section (2) mandates the CIT(A) to not to enhance the assessment unless reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the enhancement, if any, in the assessment is granted. In our view, this issue is now settled and the additions of this kind are unsustainable in law in view of the judgements in the caes of (i) Bikram Sing vs. DCIT

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

section 14A refers to expenditure on rent, taxes, salaries, interest, etc., in respect of which allowances are provided for." This observation clarifies that in case of composite and indivisible business having taxable and non-taxable income, expenditure like rent, taxes, salaries, interest etc are to be apportioned. Rule 8D(2)(iii) stipulates that 0.5% of average investment will be disallowed

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

2) of the Act but also he concludes that the same ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., could not exceed the amount of exempt income itself coming to the Rs.10,000/- out of investments made of Rs.60,000/- in shares of M/s. Indian Overseas Bank. We make it clear that the assessee

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

2) of the Act but also he concludes that the same ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., could not exceed the amount of exempt income itself coming to the Rs.10,000/- out of investments made of Rs.60,000/- in shares of M/s. Indian Overseas Bank. We make it clear that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

2) of the Act but also he concludes that the same ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., could not exceed the amount of exempt income itself coming to the Rs.10,000/- out of investments made of Rs.60,000/- in shares of M/s. Indian Overseas Bank. We make it clear that the assessee

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

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. The Ground No.2/Additional Ground No.2(a) becomes academic. 38. Regarding the Additional Ground to be re-numbered as 2(b), Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s request is for reduction of returned loss by Rs.60 lakhs offered by the assessee during the search & seizure proceedings

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. The Ground No.2/Additional Ground No.2(a) becomes academic. 38. Regarding the Additional Ground to be re-numbered as 2(b), Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s request is for reduction of returned loss by Rs.60 lakhs offered by the assessee during the search & seizure proceedings

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. The Ground No.2/Additional Ground No.2(a) becomes academic. 38. Regarding the Additional Ground to be re-numbered as 2(b), Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s request is for reduction of returned loss by Rs.60 lakhs offered by the assessee during the search & seizure proceedings

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. The Ground No.2/Additional Ground No.2(a) becomes academic. 38. Regarding the Additional Ground to be re-numbered as 2(b), Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s request is for reduction of returned loss by Rs.60 lakhs offered by the assessee during the search & seizure proceedings

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. The Ground No.2/Additional Ground No.2(a) becomes academic. 38. Regarding the Additional Ground to be re-numbered as 2(b), Ld. AR submitted that the assessee’s request is for reduction of returned loss by Rs.60 lakhs offered by the assessee during the search & seizure proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

2)(a) at Nil, unless the assessee or the previous owner paid some purchase price for acquiring such rights. In case the assessee transfers such right to manufacture etc. and also simultaneously accepts the negative covenant of non- compete, total consideration received is considered for computing capital gain u/s 45 without taking any recourse to the provisions of section

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

2)(a) at Nil, unless the assessee or the previous owner paid some purchase price for acquiring such rights. In case the assessee transfers such right to manufacture etc. and also simultaneously accepts the negative covenant of non- compete, total consideration received is considered for computing capital gain u/s 45 without taking any recourse to the provisions of section

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

14A of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is unsustainable technically. Accordingly, this part of the argument of Ground No.1 is allowed. We find adjudication of the other issues of the said ground relating to merits becomes an academic exercise. Therefore, the same are dismissed as academic.” Therefore, on the technical grounds, the Ground No.1(a) raised

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

14A of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is unsustainable technically. Accordingly, this part of the argument of Ground No.1 is allowed. We find adjudication of the other issues of the said ground relating to merits becomes an academic exercise. Therefore, the same are dismissed as academic.” Therefore, on the technical grounds, the Ground No.1(a) raised

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

14A of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is unsustainable technically. Accordingly, this part of the argument of Ground No.1 is allowed. We find adjudication of the other issues of the said ground relating to merits becomes an academic exercise. Therefore, the same are dismissed as academic.” Therefore, on the technical grounds, the Ground No.1(a) raised

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

14A of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is unsustainable technically. Accordingly, this part of the argument of Ground No.1 is allowed. We find adjudication of the other issues of the said ground relating to merits becomes an academic exercise. Therefore, the same are dismissed as academic.” Therefore, on the technical grounds, the Ground No.1(a) raised

RAMESH G PORWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

2) to deal with a situation where stock in trade is converted into investment and later on such investment were sold at a profit, the formula which is favourable to the assessee should be accepted. However this decision was rendered for A.Ys 2000-01 & 2001-02 wherein there was no differentiation in the tax rate between long term capital gain

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

14A of the Act would apply to dividend income on which tax is payable under Section 115-O of the Act.” [Emphasized by us] The aspect which weighed with the Hon’ble Supreme Court was the fact that the payment of DDT was not a payment on behalf of the shareholder. Leaving aside the question whether