JOHN DEERE EQUIPMENT PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

Section was not applicable and hence, the grossing up of the amounts was not justified as per law. 3] The learned CIT(A) erred in enhancing the income of the appellant company by making a disallowance of Rs.1,256,650/- u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of payment on account of web based training made by assessee

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPNY LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2896/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

192/- and dividend income claimed as exempt under section 10(34) / (35) of the Act amounting to Rs.3,56,74,725/-. The assessee had not disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOMNATH VAIJANATH SAKRE,, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2896/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

192/- and dividend income claimed as exempt under section 10(34) / (35) of the Act amounting to Rs.3,56,74,725/-. The assessee had not disallowed

HEMANT ENTERPRISES,NASHIK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowing ₹27,14,806/- TDS deducted by Mumbai WTR Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s. 234A as the appellant had filed return within due date u/s. 139(1). 3. The appellant craves to add, alter, modify or substitute any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

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

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

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

section 192 of the Act treating the commission as part of salary, then the disallowance of commission paid to managing

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

Section 194-I is totally misconceived. 2.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) also failed to appreciate that there are conflicting decisions on the attraction of tax withholding provisions based on „payable and „paid‟ and therefore in fiscal matters the interpretation which favours the assessee ought to have been followed [CIT v Vegetable Products Ltd 88 ITR 192 (SC)]. 2.4. The Commissioner (Appeals

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

Section 194-I is totally misconceived. 2.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) also failed to appreciate that there are conflicting decisions on the attraction of tax withholding provisions based on „payable and „paid‟ and therefore in fiscal matters the interpretation which favours the assessee ought to have been followed [CIT v Vegetable Products Ltd 88 ITR 192 (SC)]. 2.4. The Commissioner (Appeals

ANJALI PUSHKAR HINGANE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2837/Pun/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 Anjali Pushkar Hingane, Prop. M/S Areen Petroleum Services, Saikheda Phata, At Post Chandori, Taluka- Niphad, Dist. Nashik. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Abiph8603F …. Vs. Ito, Ward- 1(3), …. ""यथ"/ Respondent Nashik.

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in respect of the same. 6. When, however, we asked the learned Departmental Representative as to why we should also not remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the same directions, he, alongwith his senior colleague Shri Darhan Singh, who happens to be the CIT(A) authoring the impugned order

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

RBL BANK LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.650/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in respect of the same. 6. When, however, we asked the learned Departmental Representative as to why we should also not remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the same directions, he, alongwith his senior colleague Shri Darhan Singh, who happens to be the CIT(A) authoring the impugned order

THE RATNAKAR BANK LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in respect of the same. 6. When, however, we asked the learned Departmental Representative as to why we should also not remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the same directions, he, alongwith his senior colleague Shri Darhan Singh, who happens to be the CIT(A) authoring the impugned order