DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. AVESTA COMPUTERS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2070 & 2071/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Avesta Computers Pvt. Ltd., Kapil Complex, Baner Road, Baner, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411045 Pan: Aabca4736F

depreciation have to be adjusted before allowing the deduction under section 10A and the same has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme

FAURECIA INTERIOR SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

10A of the Act of Rs. 3,34,928 for disallowance invoked under section 14Aofthe Act without appreciating that the Appellant is entitled to deduction on profits derived from the eligible undertaking which would include disallowance made under section 14 A of the Act.” 5. We shall now take up the discussion on the facts of the assessee. Briefly stated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CUMMINS RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2073/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

depreciation have to be adjusted before allowing the deduction under section 10A and the same has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

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

10A is not an exhaustive provision and it has been further elaborated in sub-section (4) to mean the amount which bears to the profits of the business of the undertaking, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such articles or things or computer software bears to the total turnover of the business carried

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

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

10A is not an exhaustive provision and it has been further elaborated in sub-section (4) to mean the amount which bears to the profits of the business of the undertaking, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such articles or things or computer software bears to the total turnover of the business carried

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

10A of the Act to Unit II treating it as an expansion of Unit I. 4. Others. 4.1. The Learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act; 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section

M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

10A of the Act to Unit II treating it as an expansion of Unit I. 4. Others. 4.1. The Learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act; 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

10A of the Act to Unit II treating it as an expansion of Unit I. 4. Others. 4.1. The Learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act; 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

10A of the Act to Unit II treating it as an expansion of Unit I. 4. Others. 4.1. The Learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act; 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section

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

10A unit at Rs.63.81 lakh and 10AA unit at Rs.7.43 lakh. The same was added back while computing eligible amount. However, while consolidating the 12 Barclays Global Services Centre Private Limited accounts, the assessee added Rs.88.40 lakh towards provision for leave encashment as against Rs.71.24 lakh. Hence, provision was found by the AO to be more to the extent

VENTURA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 13,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 2168/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ventura (India) Private Limited Wing-C, Marisoft, Kalyani Nagar Annex, Wadgaonsheri, Pune-411 014. Pan : Aabce3274C .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

depreciation and losses of the unit the Income which is not eligible for deduction under s. 10A of the Act cannot be set off against the current profit of the eligible unit for computing the deduction under s. 10A of the IT Act.” 8. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT & Anrs. Vs. Yokogawa India

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAG ELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1545/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 वष"

depreciation and loss from the total income of the assessee before quantifying the allowable deduction u/s.10B of the Act. AO relied on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Himatasingike Seide Ltd. reported in 286 ITR 255. In the process, he ignored the fact that the said judgment applies to the period before the provisions

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SAFE PRO PACK LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1545/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 वष"

depreciation and loss from the total income of the assessee before quantifying the allowable deduction u/s.10B of the Act. AO relied on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Himatasingike Seide Ltd. reported in 286 ITR 255. In the process, he ignored the fact that the said judgment applies to the period before the provisions

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

10A by providing that the report of the auditor in the prescribed form should be filed before the specified date referred to in section 44AB, which, in turn, refers to section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, for the period anterior to the amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2020, the only requirement was to furnish the audit report

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

10A by providing that the report of the auditor in the prescribed form should be filed before the specified date referred to in section 44AB, which, in turn, refers to section 139(1) of the Act. Thus, for the period anterior to the amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2020, the only requirement was to furnish the audit report

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2),, PUNE vs. JAGTAP PATIL PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.35/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Jagtap Patil Promoters & Ward-8(2), Pune. Vs Builders, S.No.152, Pimple Gurav, Pune – 411061. Pan: Aagfj 0403 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suniol Ganoo – Ar Revenue By Shri M.M.Chate – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Pune For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)- 6, Pune Dated 04.10.2017 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2016 Passed By The Ito Ward 8(2) Pune U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Not Appreciating That It Was Only After Scrutiny Proceedings Started That The Assessee Paid The Mat. Thus By Filing Nil Return & Not Claiming Deduction U/S 80Ib(10) The Assessee Was Trying To Evade Payment Of Taxes. The Claim Of The Assessee That Filing Of Nil Return Was Clerical Error Does Not Hold Ground? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating The Ratio Laid

depreciation, taxes paid, TD5 deducted are mentioned in the return. In the columns pertaining to the deductions also, there is no mention of any figures.The appellant has also not indicated any amount under the 115JC. It is also seen that the information which is required in part A - 01 i.e. information as contained in the audit report is also mentioned

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

10A shall apply to the articles or things or services referred to in sub-section (1) as if— (a) for the figures, letters and word "1st April, 2001", the figures, letters and word "1st April, 2006" had been substituted; (b) for the word "undertaking", the words "undertaking, being the Unit" had been substituted. (9) The provisions of sub-section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation may be allowed to the assessee. He fairly pointed out that ground of appeal No.3 was on without prejudice basis to allow the entire claim of deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee here also referred section 10A