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

depreciation under section 32 of the Act being a statutory deduction and not a routine expenditure is not governed by the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 1.4. Without prejudice to the ground 1.1 above, the Learned AO and the Learned DRP has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant ought not to be penalized

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Act being a statutory deduction and not a routine expenditure is not governed by the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 1.4. Without prejudice to the ground 1.1 above, the Learned AO and the Learned DRP has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant ought not to be penalized

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Act being a statutory deduction and not a routine expenditure is not governed by the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 1.4. Without prejudice to the ground 1.1 above, the Learned AO and the Learned DRP has failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant ought not to be penalized

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

234C of the Act is to be deleted.” Brief facts of the case : 3. In this case, assessee had filed Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2014 for A.Y.2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.1,87,17,250/-. Subsequently, assessee has also filed revised ITA No.998/PUN/2023[R]&C.O.No.4/PUN/2024 [A] CTR Manufacturing Industries Private Limited

SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2011 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad-431 201 Pan :Aaecs3749M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Depreciation cannot be computed as per American rules applicable to the parent company. Therefore, Mr. Ostwal was correct in adjusting margin of profit of the taxpayer.” Thus, the Hon‟ble ITAT, Pune has also allowed adjustments made by the appellant to its profitability to account for difference and ensure comparability of the entities being compared. 10.6 The appellant has contended

ACIT,CIR.-1,, AURANGABAD vs. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2011 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad-431 201 Pan :Aaecs3749M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Depreciation cannot be computed as per American rules applicable to the parent company. Therefore, Mr. Ostwal was correct in adjusting margin of profit of the taxpayer.” Thus, the Hon‟ble ITAT, Pune has also allowed adjustments made by the appellant to its profitability to account for difference and ensure comparability of the entities being compared. 10.6 The appellant has contended

SATISH S. BANSAL,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

depreciation under provision of section 32 of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3 ITA No. 119/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2010-11 6. The Appellant denies himself in law and on facts to be liable to be tax on an amount being Rs.1,39,643/-, being addition made as disallowance under section 14A of the Act, under

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned thereafter in this section and in section 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year. Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant 9 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. assessment

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

234C of the Act. 17. Erroneous levy of interest under section 2348 of the Act Erred in levying additional interest under section 234B of the Act on account of unanticipated additions made to the total income of the Appellant on account of transfer pricing which is due to difference of opinion and as at the due date of payment

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

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

234C of the Act being mandatory and consequential in nature, is dismissed. 6. So far as the ground No.4 is concerned, the same relates to the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the disallowance of Rs.5,90,000/- being remuneration to working partners. 7. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer during the course

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

depreciation be allowed to be carried\nforward to AY 2021-22.\nInterest levied under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the\nAct

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 14A. The AO is directed to verify this claim and then accordingly compute the amount disallowable u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii). 41. Ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.5,84,000/-, being, the value of lapsed ESPOs in the income computed under the normal provisions of the Act as well

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

section (1) of S. 132 since under the CL (c) it is mandatorily required to be specified that any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

section (1) of S. 132 since under the CL (c) it is mandatorily required to be specified that any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

section (1) of S. 132 since under the CL (c) it is mandatorily required to be specified that any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

section (1) of S. 132 since under the CL (c) it is mandatorily required to be specified that any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1363 To 1367/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2008-09

section (1) of S. 132 since under the CL (c) it is mandatorily required to be specified that any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would

SHRIRAM KRISHNAJI SURVE,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

section 68 of the Act. Since all the parameters of Genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of lenders was proved beyond doubt there was no occasion to invoke S. 68 for making addition. The addition be deleted. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C is not justified