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

section 14A is held to be applicable, the disallowance in relation to non-taxable profits on sale! Redemption of investments and exempt dividend income should be restricted to Rs 11,56,172

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

section 14A is held to be applicable, the disallowance in relation to non-taxable profits on sale! Redemption of investments and exempt dividend income should be restricted to Rs 11,56,172

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

172 ITD 404 (Mum) in paragraphs 14 onwards that Chapter-X could not be invoked wherein no income chargeable to tax has arisen in assessee’s case. Learned senior counsel further submitted that contrary to various other deeming fictions like section 50C, section 50D which pre-suppose even accrued or arisen or “assessable” consideration or section 115O etc envisaging

MAHAVIR ADINATH SALVE,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, SOLAPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.441/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Mahavir Adinath Salve, The Ito, Ward-1(1), Solapur. House No.930, Nagane Plot Vs Paranda Road, Barshi, . Solapur – 413411. Pan: Arxps 5761 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V L Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 15.11.2018 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Cir- 1/0804/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

172 {SC). However, the appellant has not filed the relevant form No. 26A issued by the CA supporting that the said parties have reflected in theiij books and hSi/R^filed the returns of income. Therefore, the appellant does not get any benefit of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) in the absence of requisite forms

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE vs. M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1794/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Vishram Developers, 61B/11, Zelum Apartment, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aagfv0995F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Ajay Singh / Deepak Sasar Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg

172 / 49 SOT 67 (Ahmedabad)(URO) 5. Section 80A of the Act reads as under: Section 80A(5) - Where the assessee fails to make a claim in his return of income for any deduction under section 10A or section 10AA or section 10B or section 10BA or under any provision of this Chapter under the heading "C. - Deductions in respect

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

172 ITR 250 and McDowell Vs. CTO. The case laws relied upon by the appellant cannot be applied in the present case as the appellant has failed to prove the test of human probabilities and failed to establish the circumstantial evidence to prove the transaction is not on manipulative basis. 10.5. Further, it is seen that SEBI has levied

R B DIAMOND HOUSE,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-1, RANGE -25, CIRCLE -1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 69A.\nGround No. 6: Interest Disallowance Rs.1,54,43,569/-\n6.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have\nconsidered and deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,54,43,569/-\nbeing\ninterest on Cash Credit facility as the Cash Credit facility was\nproperly reflected

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

172 Taxation 35 (Del-Trib) f. CIT v. Giridharilal 258 ITR 331 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to pages 445 to 704 of the paper book-II submitted that the assessee has duly submitted the complete details in respect of unsecured loans of Rs.36,44,08,934/- such as detailed chart of unsecured loans along with confirmations

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2354/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kothari Agritech Private V The Dcit, Limited, S Circle-1, Solapur. 3Rd Floor, Sunplaza, 8516/11, Subhash Chowk, Murarji Peth, Solapur North, Jawaharlal Nehru Vastigrah S.O., Solapur – 413001. Maharashtra Pan: Aadck8017H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr.Piyush Bafna – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 19.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

172 Warrangale 1,41,60,901 4.1 Therefore, Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee’s claim of expenditure of Rs.1,41,60,901/-. The Assessing Officer has also made a disallowance of Rs.4,14,329/- out of Gift Expenses and Donation Expenses. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) deleted the entire addition made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. HALLIBURTON TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Invoking Section 80La( 10) , Of The Act When Bare Reading Of The Provision Does Not Impose Such Burden Of Proving Tax Avoidance On A.O.? 3. Whether On The Facts, Circumstances Of The Case And- In Law, Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Was Justified In Interpreting The Words According To The Object Of The Provision Ignoring The Fundamental Principle Of Interpretation Of Stature That Nothing Should Be Added To The Words Used By Legislature? 4. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Imposing Burden Of Proving Tax Avoidance Ignoring The Fact That Section 80Ia(10) Of The Act Is A “Domestic Transfer Pricing” Provision & Proving Tax Avoidance Is Not One

172 (Chen) The phrase “more than ordinary profits” referred in section 80IA(10) is different from “arm‟s length price‟ as referred u/s 92C of the Act. We therefore, set aside the issue to the • Digital Equipment India Ltd. 1(2006)103 TTJ 329 (Bang)] "In this case, the AO has failed to adduce any evidence or reason to satisfy

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by such order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC after considering the submissions of the assessee and relying on various decisions involving the impugned issue in favour of the assessee, deleted the addition of Rs.4

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

172 of the paper book. The relevant portion of the Para No. 14 is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference : “14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.342/PUN/2014 for assessment year 2009-10 in assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

172 of the paper book. The relevant portion of the Para No. 14 is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference : “14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.342/PUN/2014 for assessment year 2009-10 in assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

172 taxmann.com 278 (Delhi-Trib.) wherein the\nHon'ble ITAT has held as under:\n\"Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 provides exemption\nfrom income tax and stamp duty of the compensation received\non compulsory acquisition made under this Act for public\npurposes. Section 105(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 states\nthat provisions of this Act shall

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

172 (Hyderabad Tribunal). 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. It is contended that the ld. CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of any exempt 4 income, as the explanation inserted vide Finance

MUKTADEVI GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT GUNJALWADI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section\n80P(2)(d) of the Act.\n4. 15. For sake of clarity, it is also made clear that deduction u/s.80P(2)(d)\nshall be restricted to the extent of net interest income earned from\ninvestments with co-operative banks only which are registered under\nCooperative Societies Act and other interest income from commercial banks\nand other institutions

MUKTADEVI GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT GUNJALWADI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section\n80P(2)(d) of the Act.\n4. 15. For sake of clarity, it is also made clear that deduction u/s.80P(2)(d)\nshall be restricted to the extent of net interest income earned from\ninvestments with co-operative banks only which are registered under\nCooperative Societies Act and other interest income from commercial banks\nand other institutions

AKASH FISHMEAL & FISHOIL PRIVATE LIMITED,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24

disallowing an amount of Rs.17,83,804/- and raised a demand of Rs.74,29,200/-. The only grievance of the assessee before the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) was charging of tax at 2 higher rate whereas the same according to the assessee, should be at lower rates as per the provisions of the Act. 3. Before the Ld. Addl / JCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. RATHI STEEL AND METAL PVT. LTD, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Rathi Steel & Metal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.F12, Addl Midc Area, Phase-Ii, Vs. Jalna – 431203 Pan : Aabcr5546A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

section 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961 are initiated herewith. (Addition Rs.17,42,770/-)” 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions made by the Assessing Officer. So far as the addition on account of bogus purchases is concerned, he deleted the same by observing as under: 8 “5.2 I have gone through the submission