DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

section 35(2AB) from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2011 subject to the conditions underlined therein." The term 'further' makes it clear that the approval was not limited to 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2011 but was in addition to periods already approved. It is further noticeable that information obtained under RTI clearly showed that the assessee's applications were processed for earlier years also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

section 35(2AB) from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2011 subject to the conditions underlined therein." The term 'further' makes it clear that the approval was not limited to 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2011 but was in addition to periods already approved. It is further noticeable that information obtained under RTI clearly showed that the assessee's applications were processed for earlier years also

DCIT,CIRCLE-8 , PUNE vs. MAHALE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

Section 35(1) (iv) or depreciation thereon under Section 32 of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter

MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

Section 35(1) (iv) or depreciation thereon under Section 32 of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter

DCIT CIRCLE 8 , PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

Section 35(1) (iv) or depreciation thereon under Section 32 of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter

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

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

35(2AB) may please be allowed. 2) …… 3) …… 4) …… 5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (Appeals) – III, Pune erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,19,706/- by applying the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. EPYGEN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation shall be admissible under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32. 9. The assessee in the instant case has claimed the alleged expenditure u/s. 35

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 35(2AB) following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Cadila Healthcare Ltd., 31 taxmann.com 300 (Gujarat). (v) As regards to the disallowance of Rs.1,64,05,330/-, being the payments made to two foreign parties, namely, (i) Vakzine Project Management, Germany and (ii) Medicine in need corporation

DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., PUNE

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

section 35. However, the amount of deduction u/s 35(1) is equal to the amount of capital expenditure on scientific research. 17. Coming back to the amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee outside India amounting to Rs 9,61,80,237/-, we find that the expenditure of revenue nature, namely, Rs.74,95,427/- was claimed by the assessee

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

section 35(2AB) of the Act with respect to capital expenditure incurred on prototypes amounting to Rs. 1,80,49,310 (i.e., 200% of Rs.90,24,655) which was withdrawn in revised return of income. b. Reduction in consequential depreciation

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"

35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A of the Act is not correct. The Assessing Officer takes note of the disallowance, considers the explanation of assessee and holds that the contention of assessee cannot

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"

35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A of the Act is not correct. The Assessing Officer takes note of the disallowance, considers the explanation of assessee and holds that the contention of assessee cannot

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"

35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A of the Act is not correct. The Assessing Officer takes note of the disallowance, considers the explanation of assessee and holds that the contention of assessee cannot

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"

35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A of the Act is not correct. The Assessing Officer takes note of the disallowance, considers the explanation of assessee and holds that the contention of assessee cannot

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or section 35CCD or under any provisions of Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA or section 80M; (ii) without set-off of any loss or allowance for unabsorbed depreciation

MAHLE BEHR INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Section 35(1) (iv) Income Tax Act, 1961 at least to the extent of One hundred percent. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of air conditioners, radiators, heat exchangers parts and components thereof which are used in cars and SUVs and in providing

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or section 35CCD or under any provisions of 31-32[Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA or section 80M]; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation

M/S KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2021-22

35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or section 35CCD or under any provisions of 78[Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes" other than the provisions of section 80JJAA]; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation