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

9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting of Rs.29094637/- on account of Disallowance of Freebies to Doctors, as the same expenses are cannot be treated as discount as it is not reduced from sale price, rather some monetary benefit

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

9. So far as the validity of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not adjudicate the same since he has deleted the addition on merit by observing as under: 10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising

JAIHIND NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- MALEGAON, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jaihind Nagari Sahkari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Malegaon. Patsanstha Maryadit, Main Road, Raunaqabad, Malegaon, Nashik- 423203. Pan : Aaaaj8229M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 28.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Accepting The Deposits From Its Members. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18

VI-A, including section 80P, can be claimed in the return filed under any section, including section 139(4); the six deductions as referred to in section 80AC must necessarily be claimed in the return filed u/s 139(1) only. Ex consequenti, the contention that since section 80P is not covered under section 80AC, the deduction under this section becomes

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

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 has invested the funds in shares and mutual funds out of surplus generated from business

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

VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA or section 80M; (ii) without set-off of any loss or allowance for unabsorbed depreciation deemed so under section 72A where such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in sub-clause (i). Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that in case

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

1,20,58,298 | 13,35,65,182 |\n| Expenses Debited to P&L A/c. (Sub-total C) | 3,41,34,804 | 74,95,427 | 2,66,39,378 | 3,41,34,804 |\n| Grand Total | 15,07,38,534 | 9,61,80,237 | 5,45,58,297 | 26,73,42,263 |\n\n5. It can be seen from

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

1,20,58,298 13,35,65,182 Expenses Debited to 3,41,34,804 74,95,427 2,66,39,378 3,41,34,804 P&L A/c. (Sub-total C) Grand Total 15,07,38,534 9,61,80,237 5,45,58,297 26,73,42,263 5. It can be seen from the above Table that

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

1,20,58,298 13,35,65,182 Expenses Debited to 3,41,34,804 74,95,427 2,66,39,378 3,41,34,804 P&L A/c. (Sub-total C) Grand Total 15,07,38,534 9,61,80,237 5,45,58,297 26,73,42,263 5. It can be seen from the above Table that

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

1,20,58,298 13,35,65,182 Expenses Debited to 3,41,34,804 74,95,427 2,66,39,378 3,41,34,804 P&L A/c. (Sub-total C) Grand Total 15,07,38,534 9,61,80,237 5,45,58,297 26,73,42,263 5. It can be seen from the above Table that

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

vi) the Revenue. 11. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court at para 5 held as under: “5. Having heard counsel for the Revenue and for the assessee, we notice that the Assessee’s claim of additional depreciation arises out of clause (iia) of sub-section 1 of sec. 32 of the Act. Clause (ii) of sub-section 1

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

VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA or section 80M]; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause (i); (iii) without set off of any loss or allowance for unabsorbed depreciation deemed so under

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

9. On a conjoint reading of sections 80A(5) and 80AC, it gets manifest that claiming of deduction under various sections of Part C of Chapter VI-A in the return of income is essential. However, an additional requirement for claiming deduction under sections

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

9. On a conjoint reading of sections 80A(5) and 80AC, it gets manifest that claiming of deduction under various sections of Part C of Chapter VI-A in the return of income is essential. However, an additional requirement for claiming deduction under sections

BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

Depreciation Claim v. Default in TDS vi. Default in TDS & Disallowance for such Default vii. Refund Claim viii. Business Loss ix. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment x. Disallowance u/s 40A(7) (Gratuity provision) xi. Expenses incurred for Earning Exempt Income xii. Excess Contribution to Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund xiii. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xiv. Business Expenses

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

vi) Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 33 (Delhi); (vii) MAN Infraprojects Ltd. (ITA No.259 of 2017 dated 09.04.2019) (Bom.). 9. However, a change in law has been brought about the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A by inserting a non obstante clause and an Explanation after proviso. The amendment is reproduced below :- “Explanation

ROXILER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD5(4), PUNE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

depreciation. In these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this 6 Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.), we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 2. We concur with the aforesaid view of the High Court

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

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 from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause (i); (iii) without set off of any loss

DESAI INFRA PROJECTS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. CIT(A), PUNE-11, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

vi) of clause (a) of section 143(1) and the disallowance made of the deduction claim u/s 80IA(4)(i) was not justified and the same may kindly be deleted. 7) The ld. CIT(A) further erred in holding there was no technical glitch on the filing of Form 10CCB and the delay in filing of the same was solely