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"

section 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

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"

section 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

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"

section 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

NITIN DWARKADAS NYATI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 14A of the Act. It is also his submission that the disallowance, if any, u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should be applicable only to such expenditure which may have any nexus with earning exempt income and not extend the disallowance to expenses having direct relation to earning taxable income. 11. We find some force in the above arguments

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

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are squarely applicable and the same was applied correctly during the course of the assessment proceedings. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting of Rs. 2445047/- on account of foreign travel expenses

SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR.- 10,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1459/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-07

section 14A of the Act at ₹ 4,84,611/-; b) Disallowance of software expenses being capital in nature, however, depreciation

ASHOK NARAYAN BHOSALE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Narayan Bhosale, The Deputy Commissioner Of Ashok Narayan Bhosle Bunglow At Vs Income Tax, Kaveri Nagar, Pratham Housing Cirlce-8, Pune. Society, Wakad, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaspb 3588 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/03/2022

depreciation is allowable in the assessment year as claimed by the assessee. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals VI), Pune has erred as well as in facts while confirming the order of Ld.AO Circle 8, Pune making the addition of Rs.2,84,917/- under Rule 8D read with Sec. 14A in respect of dividend income being exempt u/s.10 since the assessee

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

section 263 of the Act. The notice so issued by the PCIT reads as under : “NOTICE FOR THE HEARING M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Notice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961-Assessment Year 2017- 18. In this regard, a hearing in the matter is fixed on 20/02/2024

PUSPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

section 14A has retrospective effect as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd., 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi). It is further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the additional ground of appeal raised before him challenging the disallowance of depreciation

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.685/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

14A of the Act.” 7. We have perused the case records and given considerable thought to the judicial pronouncement placed before us. We find that while adjudicating this issue, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision in assessee‟s own cases in ITA No.2417/PUN/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09 & in ITA No.309/PUN/2014 for the assessment year

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

depreciation should be done before quantifying the allowable deduction u/s.10A of the Act. Accordingly, the allowable deduction is reduced to the disadvantage of the assessee. 7. Further, the AO made other addition invoking the provisions of section 14A

TATA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2054/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tata Technologies Limited, The Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.25, Phase I, Rajiv Vs Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjawadi, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaactg 3092 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafana & Smt.Chandni Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Shivraj B. Moray - Dr Date Of Hearing 01/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-7, Pune Dated 30.10.2019 For The A.Y. 2015-16 U/S 143(3)Rws 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act. The Appellant Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao, Following The Directions Of The Ld. Drp, Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Tpo In Rejecting The Alp Computation Undertaken By The Appellant For Benchmarking The International Transaction Pertaining To Payment Of Commission, Thereby Making A Tp Adjustment Of Rs.5,79,53,349 In The Software Distribution Segment.

section 271AA of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings ought to be dropped” ITA No.2054/PUN/2019for A.Y. 2015-16 Tata Technologies Ltd., Vs. ACIT[A] 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant assessee had filed return of Income on 27/11/2015 for AY 2015-16 declaring total income of Rs.1,34,62,70,040/-. The case

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND & SONS vs. JOINT COMMISSINER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 14A envisages that there should be an actual receipt of income, which was not includable in the total income, during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income.” From the above discussion, it is evident that relevant legal proposition is well settled in favour of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ,, JALGAON vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND & SONS,,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 14A envisages that there should be an actual receipt of income, which was not includable in the total income, during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income.” From the above discussion, it is evident that relevant legal proposition is well settled in favour of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ALFA LAVAL INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

depreciation allowed on the said disallowance. 18. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) as similar issue of software expenses had been restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh verification by the Tribunal. 19. We find that the Tribunal in assessment year 2008-09 had set aside the said issue for verification

COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 without appreciating the facts of the case in proper perspective. The appellant hereby prays that the addition may please be deleted. B. Additional ground: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant ought to be allowed

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. NITIN DWARKADAS NYATI, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Acit, Central Circle 2(3), Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati Pune Sr. No.103/129, Nyati Unitree, Vs. Yerwada, Nagar Road, Pune – 411006 Pan: Aabpn2601F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krishna V Gujarathi Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2025 O R D E R

section 14A of the Act. It is also his submission that the disallowance, if any, u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should be applicable only to such expenditure which may have any nexus with earning exempt income and not extend the disallowance to expenses having direct relation to earning taxable income. 11. We find some force in the above arguments

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin