INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED vs. LATUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

vi) of the Income Tax Act scheduled bank or a non-\nscheduled bank or a cooperative bank other than primary agricultural credit\nsociety or a primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank is\neligible for deduction in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts\nmade subject to the amount of deduction computed as per the above\nprovision read

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

1) of Rs.5,50,000/-. (h) Disallowance of repairs to building, plant and machinery of Rs.1,16,36,450/-. 5 Disallowance of sales and promotion expenditure of Rs.2,90,94,637/-. (j) Disallowance of Corporate Guarantee Commission of Rs.1,20,29,793/-. (k) Disallowance of deduction u/s 10AA of Rs.47,46,67,962/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances

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

vi) of the Act. Thus, it is clear that where income in the nature of royalty is payable to a resident-payee, then the payer is liable to deduct tax at source u/s 194J. Failure to deduct and pay such tax in the Government exchequer entails, inter alia, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as has been made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

36 CO No.43/PUN/2025 February, 2025 WP3057_2019.DOC jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue the impugned notice would be required to be considered on the basis of the departmental record and on such basis, the relevant provisions of law which would govern the facts and circumstances of the case in the hands of the Assessing Officer. In the present case

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

36(1)(va) for late payment of employee contribution to PF Fund (ii) Variation of Computation of tax liability The assessee opted for new tax regime u/s115BAA of Income-tax Act, 1961 In the Clause 8(a) of Tax Audit Report it has been reported that the appellant opted for the new tax regime u/s 115BAA of Income

AUTOLINE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, 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 Nos. 970 & 2983/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Autoline Industries Limited. S. No.313-314 & 320-323, Nanewarwadi, Chakan, Pune-410501. Pan : Aabca4534D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

vi) for A.Y. 2009-10, the Ld. DRP had directed that interest @13.25 be charged on the loan and advances given. A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 16. We observe that in the entire DRP‟s directions, this fact that the assessee had not furnished any evidences in support of its claim that the amount given as loans were later

AUTOLINE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY 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 Nos. 970 & 2983/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Autoline Industries Limited. S. No.313-314 & 320-323, Nanewarwadi, Chakan, Pune-410501. Pan : Aabca4534D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

vi) for A.Y. 2009-10, the Ld. DRP had directed that interest @13.25 be charged on the loan and advances given. A.Ys.2012-13 & 2013-14 16. We observe that in the entire DRP‟s directions, this fact that the assessee had not furnished any evidences in support of its claim that the amount given as loans were later

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

depreciation, but the timing of filing the Form was a directory requirement, which was fulfilled on filing it even during the course of assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Shivanand Electronics (supra) dealt with the requirement of filing audit report for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80J, which required that the report should be filed "along

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

depreciation, but the timing of filing the Form was a directory requirement, which was fulfilled on filing it even during the course of assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Shivanand Electronics (supra) dealt with the requirement of filing audit report for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80J, which required that the report should be filed "along

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

depreciation on the said disallowance of expenditure even after holding the same to be capital in nature.” From the above, it is evident that ground Nos. 1 and 2 relates to claim of deduction u/s.35AB of the Act and ground Nos. 3 and 4 relates to allowability of claim of business loss relatable to abandonment of the 3 A.Y.1999-2000 proposed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

vi) Provision for gratuity 7,82,750 vii) Cash payment 40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods √ xi) Excess interest provision reversed 1,72,87,043 xii) Donation 35,500 xiii) Stamp/Registration charges

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

vi) Provision for gratuity 7,82,750 vii) Cash payment 40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods √ xi) Excess interest provision reversed 1,72,87,043 xii) Donation 35,500 xiii) Stamp/Registration charges

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST,, PUNE

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

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

36, the Gujarat High Court held that the Income Tax liability of a Charitable Trust has to be deducted as a necessary outgoing before the net income capable of obligation for the purpose of the Trust under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act could be ascertained. A similar view was taken by the Gujarat High Court

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

section 142 which has been filed by the assessee at Page 53, 57 of Paper Book(PB). 5.3 The ld.AO vide notice dt.15.08.2016 raised these questions before the assessee : 12 Ashish Niranjan Shah [A] “1. Detailed note on business/profession activities carried out by you during the year under consideration. 2. Please furnish copy of ITR, computation and audit report along

INDUS BIOTECH LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

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

36(1)(va) 23,778 3 Add: Disallowance of IPO costs u/s 37(1) 1,17,25,562 4 Add: Disallowance of income tax and interest on 115JB paid 5,816 5 Less: Disallowance of CSR expenditure not considered in intimation u/s 143(1) 38,54,277 6 Total income as per intimation u/s 143(1

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

vi. Disallowance of Remuneration to partners Rs.17,50,000/-. vii. Disallowance of interest paid to partners Rs.38,61,612/-. Aggrieved by assessment order dated 26-09-2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the First Appellate Proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) apart from making GP addition of Rs.5

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

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

vi. Disallowance of Remuneration to partners Rs.17,50,000/-. vii. Disallowance of interest paid to partners Rs.38,61,612/-. Aggrieved by assessment order dated 26-09-2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the First Appellate Proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) apart from making GP addition of Rs.5

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.500/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

36,470 computed by the Appellant. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act 2. erred in disallowing an amount of Rs.4,34,70,794 under section 40(a)(i) of the Act by re-characterizing reimbursement of expenses paid by the Appellant to Vishay Intertechnology Asia Pte Ltd., Singapore as „Royalty‟ in view of Explanation 2 and Explanation