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

4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in holding that 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 44 creates special application of these provisions in the cases

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

4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in holding that 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 44 creates special application of these provisions in the cases

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"

172/- by treating the same as ‘Bogus purchases’. 8. in confirming disallowance of rent paid of Rs.31,44,000/- for bungalow located at 70, Koregaon Park, Pune taken on lease (belonging to M/s. Poonawalla Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd., ZSP Group Company) for office of Director of appellant company and depreciation of Rs.12,97,701/- on the assets placed there

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"

172/- by treating the same as ‘Bogus purchases’. 8. in confirming disallowance of rent paid of Rs.31,44,000/- for bungalow located at 70, Koregaon Park, Pune taken on lease (belonging to M/s. Poonawalla Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd., ZSP Group Company) for office of Director of appellant company and depreciation of Rs.12,97,701/- on the assets placed there

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"

172/- by treating the same as ‘Bogus purchases’. 8. in confirming disallowance of rent paid of Rs.31,44,000/- for bungalow located at 70, Koregaon Park, Pune taken on lease (belonging to M/s. Poonawalla Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd., ZSP Group Company) for office of Director of appellant company and depreciation of Rs.12,97,701/- on the assets placed there

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"

172/- by treating the same as ‘Bogus purchases’. 8. in confirming disallowance of rent paid of Rs.31,44,000/- for bungalow located at 70, Koregaon Park, Pune taken on lease (belonging to M/s. Poonawalla Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd., ZSP Group Company) for office of Director of appellant company and depreciation of Rs.12,97,701/- on the assets placed there

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

172/- by the appellant for acquiring shares of Punjab National Bank & Bharatiship Yard be calculated for the purpose of disallowance under section 14A is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It further be held that no disallowance under section 14A is warranted on facts & circumstances of the Act. This disallowance so directed to be made be deleted

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1175/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

Section 80IA(4) of the Act. 5. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently supporting the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEER SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1175/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

Section 80IA(4) of the Act. 5. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently supporting the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1175/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

Section 80IA(4) of the Act. 5. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently supporting the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1175/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

Section 80IA(4) of the Act. 5. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently supporting the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) submitted

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

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

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

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

172/-. The details of the disallowances, which are the bone of contention before us, include the following: (a) The claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of expenditure detailed in ground No. 1 of the appeal. The Assessing Officer added the aggregate sum of Rs.61,71,472/- on this

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ JUGALKISHOR GIRDHARILAL,, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

4 Hectors situated at Majalgaon is jointly owned by the three assessees having 1/3rd share each. The aforesaid land was sold by the assessees in the period relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 for a total consideration of Rs.3.68 crores. The assessees thereafter claimed deduction u/s. 54B in respect of Long Term Capital Gains arising on the sale

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ SATYANARAYAN GIRDHARILAL,, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

4 Hectors situated at Majalgaon is jointly owned by the three assessees having 1/3rd share each. The aforesaid land was sold by the assessees in the period relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 for a total consideration of Rs.3.68 crores. The assessees thereafter claimed deduction u/s. 54B in respect of Long Term Capital Gains arising on the sale

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ MURLIDHAR GIRDHARILAL, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

4 Hectors situated at Majalgaon is jointly owned by the three assessees having 1/3rd share each. The aforesaid land was sold by the assessees in the period relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 for a total consideration of Rs.3.68 crores. The assessees thereafter claimed deduction u/s. 54B in respect of Long Term Capital Gains arising on the sale

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