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

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

section 32(2) of the Act. As per Chapter IV-D, the book profits are determined after deduction of depreciation. In the assessee‟s case, there would be loss after deduction of unabsorbed carry forward depreciation to the tune of Rs.10,84,75,430/-, therefore, remuneration to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- would only be allowable

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

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

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

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

14A of the Act at ₹ 4,84,611/-; b) Disallowance of software expenses being capital in nature, however, depreciation @ 60% was allowed and net addition was of ₹ 10,70,641/-; c) Adjustment of interest paid under section 220(2

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

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

2, the appellant hereby prays that the disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 may please be deleted. 4 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honourable CIT(A) erred in not restricting the disallowance under section 14A

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act in response to which the assessee attended before the Assessing Officer from time to time and produced the details as called for. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why its claim of exemption u/s 11 should not be disallowed since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act in response to which the assessee attended before the Assessing Officer from time to time and produced the details as called for. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why its claim of exemption u/s 11 should not be disallowed since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act in response to which the assessee attended before the Assessing Officer from time to time and produced the details as called for. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why its claim of exemption u/s 11 should not be disallowed since

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act in response to which the assessee attended before the Assessing Officer from time to time and produced the details as called for. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why its claim of exemption u/s 11 should not be disallowed since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act in response to which the assessee attended before the Assessing Officer from time to time and produced the details as called for. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why its claim of exemption u/s 11 should not be disallowed since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act in response to which the assessee attended before the Assessing Officer from time to time and produced the details as called for. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why its claim of exemption u/s 11 should not be disallowed since

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 on the car on the ground

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 of the Act amounting to Rs.3,34,928/-. Eventually, in the draft assessment order dated 27-30-2014, the assessed income

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

2. Depreciation claim 3. Deduction and deposit of TDS 4. Deduction under Chapter VIA 5. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income 6. Tax deduction, TDS deposit and TDS statement filing 7. Deduction/Exemption u/s 10A/10AA 8. Income from house property 9. Reduction in profit due to ICDS 10. International transaction(s) 11. Loss from currency fluctuations 03. The assessment was completed