DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

3. a. In directing the AO to classify items of fixed assets of Rs.38,70,450/- like stainless steel tables, stools, racks etc. located in manufacturing unit into ‘Furniture and Fixtures’ and ‘Plant and Machinery’. 4. in confirming the disallowance of the ‘Provision for Leave Encashment’ amounting to Rs.128,83,627/- pertaining to ‘DTA’ unit ascertained on the basis

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

3. a. In directing the AO to classify items of fixed assets of Rs.38,70,450/- like stainless steel tables, stools, racks etc. located in manufacturing unit into ‘Furniture and Fixtures’ and ‘Plant and Machinery’. 4. in confirming the disallowance of the ‘Provision for Leave Encashment’ amounting to Rs.128,83,627/- pertaining to ‘DTA’ unit ascertained on the basis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

3. a. In directing the AO to classify items of fixed assets of Rs.38,70,450/- like stainless steel tables, stools, racks etc. located in manufacturing unit into ‘Furniture and Fixtures’ and ‘Plant and Machinery’. 4. in confirming the disallowance of the ‘Provision for Leave Encashment’ amounting to Rs.128,83,627/- pertaining to ‘DTA’ unit ascertained on the basis

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

MADHURI DHANANJAUY MARATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), NASHIK

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1639 & 1640/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Smt. Madhuri Dhananjay Marathe, 3, Yashodhara Apartment, Chinchkhed Road, At Post Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka- Niphad, Nashik Pan : Amjpm4024B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

172/-. The assessment proceedings were taken up and while passing assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, addition was made on account of advance received of Rs.2,50,000/- and disallowance

MADHURI DHANANJAUY MARATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), NASHIK

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1639 & 1640/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Smt. Madhuri Dhananjay Marathe, 3, Yashodhara Apartment, Chinchkhed Road, At Post Pimpalgaon (B), Taluka- Niphad, Nashik Pan : Amjpm4024B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

172/-. The assessment proceedings were taken up and while passing assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, addition was made on account of advance received of Rs.2,50,000/- and disallowance

FCA INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED (SURVIVING ENTITY AFTER THE MERGER OF PCA MOTORS PVT LTD),PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

172/-. Remaining amount of Rs.10,03,384/- pertains to disallowance as per section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. It was further submitted that the above amount of Rs.10,03,384/- was voluntarily disallowed in the return of income since it relates to payments on which TDS was not deducted. It was further submitted that the adjustment of Rs.10

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

RAMESH G PORWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

3. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Act it be held that that direction given by CIT appeals (III) to the effect that interest paid of Rs.1,72,172/- by the appellant for acquiring shares of Punjab National Bank & Bharatiship Yard be calculated for the purpose of disallowance under section

AYOKI FABRICON PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2155/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ayoki Fabricon Pvt. Ltd., 137 To 139, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Pune. Pan : Aabca5780F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 14.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.1,10,53,748/- U/S 32(1)(Iia) On New Plant & Machinery On The Ground That The Assessee Was Not Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Or Production Of Any Article Or Thing. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring The Fact That – I) The Details Furnished To The Assessing Officer By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Were Same As Were Furnished During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) & Therefore.

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Since the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of its income, separate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are being initiated.” 4. Aggrieved with the said reassessment order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) raising the legal objection

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

3 is hereby dismissed. 8. The ground No. 4 raised by the appellant is that her address was at the Hyderabad since long time. However, the notice u/s. 148 was received from Ward-1, Nanded. In view of the same, the appellant has claimed that the notices issued are invalid and without jurisdiction. During the appellate proceedings, appellant

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

3), there are restrictions on use, wherein licensee shall not (a) install, use, copy, modify, merge or transfer copies of products except as expressly authorized in the agreement; (b) use any backup copies of products other than to replace original copies provided by Altair, in case it is destroyed or damaged; (c) disassemble, decompile or ‘unlock’, reverse translate, reverse engineer

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

3), there are restrictions on use, wherein licensee shall not (a) install, use, copy, modify, merge or transfer copies of products except as expressly authorized in the agreement; (b) use any backup copies of products other than to replace original copies provided by Altair, in case it is destroyed or damaged; (c) disassemble, decompile or ‘unlock’, reverse translate, reverse engineer

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

3), there are restrictions on use, wherein licensee shall not (a) install, use, copy, modify, merge or transfer copies of products except as expressly authorized in the agreement; (b) use any backup copies of products other than to replace original copies provided by Altair, in case it is destroyed or damaged; (c) disassemble, decompile or ‘unlock’, reverse translate, reverse engineer

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

3), there are restrictions on use, wherein licensee shall not (a) install, use, copy, modify, merge or transfer copies of products except as expressly authorized in the agreement; (b) use any backup copies of products other than to replace original copies provided by Altair, in case it is destroyed or damaged; (c) disassemble, decompile or ‘unlock’, reverse translate, reverse engineer