POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

section 14A r.w.Rule 8D disallowance of Rs.10,83,615/- in relation to its exempt income. Learned CIT(A) detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect reads as follows: “5. GROUND No.1, 2 & 3

HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

3. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,35,93,675 made by the Assessing Officer ("AO") under section 14A

HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

3. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,35,93,675 made by the Assessing Officer ("AO") under section 14A

DEVEN SUPERCRITICALS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.176/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 14A of the Act was not worked out. The assessee on without prejudice basis, worked out the disallowance at ₹ 4,53,019/- under Rule 8D of the Rules. However, it was mentioned by the assessee that at best, disallowance of ₹ 3

NITIN DWARKADAS NYATI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

section 14A, the assessee must incur the expenditure in relation to the income not forming part of the total income. Relying on various decisions it was submitted that no disallowance is called for. 4. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and made disallowance of an amount of Rs.3,05,36,389/- 3

PRAJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D were applicable proceeded to compute the disallowance which according to him worked out to Rs.82,62,396/- reducing there from suo- moto disallowance of Rs.51,41,522/-, he made disallowance of Rs.33,20,874/- u/s 14A of the Act. Thus, the Ld. AO completed the assessment on 30.12.2019 u/s 143(3

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) enhanced the assessment on this account vide his order dated 15-12-2008. The Tribunal set-aside the matter back to the AO for doing a reasonable disallowance. The AO is yet to give effect to the said direction of the ITAT. 8. While the disallowance u/s.14A

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) enhanced the assessment on this account vide his order dated 15-12-2008. The Tribunal set-aside the matter back to the AO for doing a reasonable disallowance. The AO is yet to give effect to the said direction of the ITAT. 8. While the disallowance u/s.14A

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) enhanced the assessment on this account vide his order dated 15-12-2008. The Tribunal set-aside the matter back to the AO for doing a reasonable disallowance. The AO is yet to give effect to the said direction of the ITAT. 8. While the disallowance u/s.14A

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) enhanced the assessment on this account vide his order dated 15-12-2008. The Tribunal set-aside the matter back to the AO for doing a reasonable disallowance. The AO is yet to give effect to the said direction of the ITAT. 8. While the disallowance u/s.14A

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 14A of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) enhanced the assessment on this account vide his order dated 15-12-2008. The Tribunal set-aside the matter back to the AO for doing a reasonable disallowance. The AO is yet to give effect to the said direction of the ITAT. 8. While the disallowance u/s.14A

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 14A(2) and (3) read with rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable.” (underline provided by us for emphasis) 11 18. Following the same parity of reasoning and since the issue was also decided by the Assessing Officer on the basis that similar disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. IGATE COMPUTER SYSTEM LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 14A(2) and (3) read with rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable.” (underline provided by us for emphasis) 11 18. Following the same parity of reasoning and since the issue was also decided by the Assessing Officer on the basis that similar disallowance

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

3 to 5 of Department’s appeal is with regard to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. Per contra, the assessee has raised ground No. 1 in Cross Objection challenging the disallowance u/s 14A in respect of non-taxable profits on sale/redemption of investments and exempt dividend income. In Ground No.2 of the Cross Objection raised

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

3 to 5 of Department’s appeal is with regard to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. Per contra, the assessee has raised ground No. 1 in Cross Objection challenging the disallowance u/s 14A in respect of non-taxable profits on sale/redemption of investments and exempt dividend income. In Ground No.2 of the Cross Objection raised

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR BUILDER MUMBAI REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

section 14A cannot be made. This is purely a legal issue requiring no verification of facts and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) rightly allowed the claim of the respondent-assessee that no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted in the absence of any exempt income. Mere fact that the respondent-assessee himself had offered suo moto disallowance does not alter

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

section 14A cannot be made. This is purely a legal issue requiring no verification of facts and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) rightly allowed the claim of the respondent-assessee that no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted in the absence of any exempt income. Mere fact that the respondent-assessee himself had offered suo moto disallowance does not alter

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

section 14A cannot be made. This is purely a legal issue requiring no verification of facts and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) rightly allowed the claim of the respondent-assessee that no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted in the absence of any exempt income. Mere fact that the respondent-assessee himself had offered suo moto disallowance does not alter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOMNATH VAIJANATH SAKRE,, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2896/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

disallowance u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.76,21,500/-. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeal) was justified in holding that section 14A contemplates an exception for deductions allowable under the Act as contained u/s.28 to 43B of the Act and that Section