ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRI VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

150 TAXMAN 194 (Guj) and the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S. Venkata Subba Rao Vs. CIT (1987) 35 TAXMANN 401 (AP). 27. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises in the present appeal is against the disallowance made under section

MR. VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

150 TAXMAN 194 (Guj) and the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S. Venkata Subba Rao Vs. CIT (1987) 35 TAXMANN 401 (AP). 27. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises in the present appeal is against the disallowance made under section

ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRI VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

150 TAXMAN 194 (Guj) and the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S. Venkata Subba Rao Vs. CIT (1987) 35 TAXMANN 401 (AP). 27. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue which arises in the present appeal is against the disallowance made under section

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 of the Act. It is also his submission that the disallowance, if any, u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should be applicable only to such expenditure which may have any nexus with earning exempt income and not extend the disallowance to expenses having direct relation to earning taxable income. 11. We find some force in the above arguments

CUMMINS INDIA LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 15 Cummins India Limited. 34. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee during the year under consideration had claimed deduction of ₹ 3.89 crores under section 35(2AB) of the Act being 150

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

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 34. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee during the year under consideration had claimed deduction of ₹ 3.89 crores under section 35(2AB) of the Act being 150

COPPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SATARA

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 34. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee during the year under consideration had claimed deduction of ₹ 3.89 crores under section 35(2AB) of the Act being 150

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

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

150% of eligible expenditure, under the said section. The assessee argues that the denial of the disallowance is unfair when

BHARAT FORGE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.13/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

disallowance. 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the order of Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Cummins India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 576 (Pune – Trib.). He pointed out that facility has been approved by DSIR and certificate in Form No.3CL has been

PUNE ZILHA MADHYAWARTI SAHAKARI BANK SEVAKANCHI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PR. CTI -3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1086/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22

disallowed Rs.7,68,150/- and concluded the assessment. 4. Subsequently, ld. PCIT examined the assessment record and under the provisions of section

SUDHAKAR BAJIRAO SHISODE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2780/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

150 declared in the return filed for A.Y. 2018-19. Subsequently, based on the information received from Risk Management Strategy, the reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee were carried out. Certain details were submitted by the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings. However, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the proceedings disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.80C

MINILEC INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.690/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Minilec India Pvt. Ltd., 1073/1-2-3, At & Post Pirangut, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 412111 …. Pan:Aabcm2682E Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11(2), Pune

150%, vide ground of appeal No.2, an alternate plea has been raised to allow the deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act at 100% and vide ground of appeal No.3, the issue to be decided is whether the payment of leave encashment was covered under section 43B of the Act or not. Our attention was drawn to the provisions

STAR ENGINEERS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1435/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

disallowed under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The CIT(A) had restricted the same to ₹ 29,11,882/-, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The Pune Bench of Tribunal in Minilec India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) on similar issue of claim of weighted deduction in the absence of any form No.3CL received from

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Acit, Central Circle 2(3), Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati Pune Sr. No.103/129, Nyati Unitree, Vs. Yerwada, Nagar Road, Pune – 411006 Pan: Aabpn2601F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krishna V Gujarathi Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2025 O R D E R

section 14A of the Act. It is also his submission that the disallowance, if any, u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should be applicable only to such expenditure which may have any nexus with earning exempt income and not extend the disallowance to expenses having direct relation to earning taxable income. 11. We find some force in the above arguments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 154 of the Act for making such disallowance. Against the findings of Assessing Officer the Revenue is in appeal. 3. The solitary ground raised by the Department in appeal is as under : “1. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the issue under consideration cannot

BHARAT FORGE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2011- 12. The Tribunal decided this issue in favour of assessee by observing as under : “16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue before us is vis-à-vis weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The assessee had recognized

M/S. KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1271 & 1272/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

150.-. After reducing the suo moto disallowance offered by the assessee, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,35,40,471/-. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) pertaining to interest component. However, the remaining amount of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), being, 0.5% of the average value of investments, was sustained. The assessee

M/S. KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1271 & 1272/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

150.-. After reducing the suo moto disallowance offered by the assessee, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,35,40,471/-. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) pertaining to interest component. However, the remaining amount of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), being, 0.5% of the average value of investments, was sustained. The assessee