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

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

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

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

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

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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.

depreciation claimed by the appellant in the earlier years as the assets have now been held to be stock in trade by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs.3,89,26,200/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in Revenue recognized

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.

depreciation claimed by the appellant in the earlier years as the assets have now been held to be stock in trade by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs.3,89,26,200/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in Revenue recognized

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. CUMMINS SALES & SERVICES (I),LTD,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS CUMMINS DIESELS SALES & SERVICE LTD,), PUNE

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

2) of section 72A should be squarely applied to the case of demerger covered under sub- section (4) of section 72A of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer denied the claim of set-off of brought forward of business losses and unabsorbed depreciation losses. The Assessing Officer also made a disallowance of Rs.6,60,520/- u/s 14A

JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PCIT-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1273/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Janata Grahak Madhyawarti The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, V 2020, Grahak Bhavan, Tilak S Road, Sadashiv Peth, Pune-411030. Pan: Aabaj7614D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Dr(Cit) Date Of Hearing 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/01/2024

depreciation along with invoices of assets Details of outstanding sundry creditors Supporting documents w.r.t deduction claimed under chapter VIA 09/10/2019 In response to notice dated 04/10/2019, appellant submitted requisite documents and information along with a detailed listing of co-op banks from whom interest is received w.r.t which deduction u/s 80P is claimed by the appellant. Appellant also submitted copies

ZF STEERING GEAR (INDIA) LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14

section (2) of sec. 14A of the Act could be invoked only if the ld. O having regard to the accounts of the assessee, was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.998/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Dy.Commissioner Ctr Manufacturing Of Income Tax, Circle- Vs Industries Private Limited, 1(1), Pune. Nagar Road, Vadgaon Sheri, S.O. Pune City, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacc7256R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

2) of the Act was served on 31.08.2015. 4. In assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed that there was exempt income earned by the assessee. Assessee hadsuo- moto disallowed u/s.14A of the Act Rs.15,000/-.The AO invoked Rule 8D r.w.s 14A and disallowed an amount of Rs.2,48,780/-. 4.1 During the assessment proceedings AO observed that assessee

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

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

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

14A is warranted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal no.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed. We make it very clear that there is no dispute as regards to the disallowance made u/s sub-rule (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Act. 15. Ground of appeal no.3 challenges the findings of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

14A is warranted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal no.2 filed by the assessee stands allowed. We make it very clear that there is no dispute as regards to the disallowance made u/s sub-rule (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Act. 15. Ground of appeal no.3 challenges the findings of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the provisions