DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. GRIHUM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance made by the CPC u/s 143(1)(a) without affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, has observed as under: 11 CO No.39/PUN/2024 8. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it would be necessary to reproduce Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, at the relevant time which read as under :- "143(1)(a) Where a return

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”].

disallowing the assessee’s claim to this effect seeking to carry forward the same to subsequent assessment year(s). He has also taken pains to file a detailed written note summarizing all of the assessee’s arguments regarding the instant issue as follows: “5. Grounds 3 and 4 deal with the AO’s denial of carry forward of loss

BURST HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE MAHARASHTRA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowance of the deduction under section 80-IAC. The CPC's failure to address the technical problems and the Appellant's grievances is unjust and should be rectified. **Non-Speaking Order by CIT(A)* The CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without addressing the various grounds of appeal and the merits of the case. The CIT(A) failed

M/S. T - 3 ENERGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.826/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., D-Ii/65-1, Midc, Telco Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 …. Pan: Aacct9805F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune

disallowance 6 T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd. made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act was thus, not warranted. The assessee also filed a Note on lease line charges i.e. services availed by it, which is reproduced under para 8 at pages 12 and 13 of the appellate order. The CIT(A) observed that in case

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

disallowance made on account of profits on sale/redemption of investments. The relevant facts are that as a part of General Insurance business, the assessee is mandated by the Insurance Act, 1951 and IRDA to make investments in specified securities. During the A.Y. 2007-08, the assessee has earned profits on sale/redemption of investments

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

disallowance made on account of profits on sale/redemption of investments. The relevant facts are that as a part of General Insurance business, the assessee is mandated by the Insurance Act, 1951 and IRDA to make investments in specified securities. During the A.Y. 2007-08, the assessee has earned profits on sale/redemption of investments

MDINDIA HEALTHCARE SERVICES (TPA) PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1366/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mdindia Healthcare Services (Tpa) Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Mdindia Health Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd.) S.No.46/1, E-Space Building, A-2 Wing, 3Rd Floor, Pune Nagar Road, Vadgaon Sheri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aadcm4828N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 14(2), Pune

156 ITD 425 (Pune-Trib.). He further pointed out that the Tribunal 5 in para 21 has decided the issue on the basis of tax neutrality and in para 22, it has also decided that the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act are not attracted. 8. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be. ―270AA. Immunity

ASHIRWAD CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE, PUNE

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

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

disallowing the following: Capital expenses allowable under Section 11(1)(a) Rs. 21,16,058 15% deductible under Section 11(1)(a) Rs.1,11,62,696 Amount accumulated under Section 11(2) Rs.70,00,000 Rs.2,02,78,754 4 ITA No.190/PUN/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 even while, in the Appeal against the Order of Assessment under Section 143(3), passed

YAZAKI (I) P LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA YAZAKI AUTOCOMP LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.163/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

156 and a notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act along with the said draft assessment order, thereby not following the mandate as laid down under section 144C of the Act. The Appellant prays that the said draft assessment order be held as void-ab-initio, bad in law and illegal and consequently

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(ii) of the Rules and therefore, the same conclusion ought to have been applied to section 36(1)(iii) as well. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, the remand by the tribunal to the Assessing Officer to examine whether the investments were 14 Pune Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers

SANGRAM NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT ,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowance that the same has been rightly made in the assessee’s hands since it has not derived the interest income from regular business activity carried out with the members of the society. We note in this factual backdrop that the instant issue is no more res-integra in the light of M/s. Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. PCIT

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

disallowance of INR 4,50,70,798 under u/s 14A of the Act r.w rule 8D(2)(ii) be deleted. Ground 10: Additional relief under section 90 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the AU based on the directions of Ld. DRP erred in disregarding Appellant’s claim for additional relief under section

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D is upheld and the grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 12. The ground of appeal No.3 relates to the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in deleting the addition made on account of excess provision made for income tax to the tune of Rs.14

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D is upheld and the grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 12. The ground of appeal No.3 relates to the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in deleting the addition made on account of excess provision made for income tax to the tune of Rs.14

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

disallowance of deduction claimed under\nsections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID\nor section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond\nthe due date specified under sub-section (1) of\nsection 139\"\n6. Given that there is no specific requirement in section 10AA\nto file the return of income within the due date

SHRI MARTAND DEOSANSTHAN JEJURI,PUNE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

156 days in filing Form 10B. Hence, Form 10B was not filed within the time frame outlined by the Act. 7.5 In view of the above, I find no error in the AO's decision to disallow the appellant's claim for exemption under Section

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

SHREE VENKATESH BUILDCON PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

156/-). The learned CIT(A)-4, Pune erred in not appreciating that there was no any excessive or unreasonable payments made to persons covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the ITA, 1961. 3. Before us, at the outset, Ld.A.R. submitted that ground Nos.1 and 2 are with respect to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. He submitted that if ground