DCIT, CIRCLE-8 vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

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

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANACE LTD,, PUNE

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

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,, PUNE

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

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S . PUNE MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 43D are applicable to the financial institutions and not to co- operative societies. 4. For this and such other reasons as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. The case file reveals that none attended on behalf of assessee despite issuance

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess.” In the present case, it is an admitted position that the assessee bank has created special reserve u/s. 36(1)(viii) to the extent of Rs.12 Crores in the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess.” In the present case, it is an admitted position that the assessee bank has created special reserve u/s. 36(1)(viii) to the extent of Rs.12 Crores in the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess.” In the present case, it is an admitted position that the assessee bank has created special reserve u/s. 36(1)(viii) to the extent of Rs.12 Crores in the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess.” In the present case, it is an admitted position that the assessee bank has created special reserve u/s. 36(1)(viii) to the extent of Rs.12 Crores in the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal