M/S. CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

2. The first modified ground raised by the assessee is in relation to confirmation of disallowance of Rs.4,38,87,662/-. Classic Citi Investments Pvt. Ltd. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of hotels and earning income from leasing of Business plaza. Return was filed declaring total income

M/S. CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

2. The first modified ground raised by the assessee is in relation to confirmation of disallowance of Rs.4,38,87,662/-. Classic Citi Investments Pvt. Ltd. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of hotels and earning income from leasing of Business plaza. Return was filed declaring total income

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

195, 196C and 199 of the Act, quoted above, would further fortify the fact that the dividend income under Section 115-O of the Act is a special category of income which has been treated differently by the Act making the same non-includible in the total income of the recipient assessee as tax thereon had already been paid

M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

195, 196C and 199 of the Act, quoted above, would further fortify the fact that the dividend income under Section 115-O of the Act is a special category of income which has been treated differently by the Act making the same non-includible in the total income of the recipient assessee as tax thereon had already been paid

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

195 Taxman 117 (Bom.) ii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) iii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat) iv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) v. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013, dated 06.02.2015 10. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has contended

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

195 Taxman 117 (Bom.) ii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) iii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat) iv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) v. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013, dated 06.02.2015 10. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has contended

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

195 Taxman 117 (Bom.) ii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312 (SC) iii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20 (Gujarat) iv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay) v. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013, dated 06.02.2015 10. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative has contended

CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE -1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cma Cgm Agencies India Private Vs. Dcit, Range-1(1), Limited, Pune 407, City Tower Floor, Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent

section 195 of the Act. 12. We find that the assessee did not set up a case of reimbursement of costs in the hands of the payee before the authorities below. Notwithstanding the discussion in the foregoing para, we proceed to deal with the situation of the payment made by the assessee having profit element in the hands

CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ELPHINSTONE ROAD-WEST, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1454/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Cma Cgm Agencies India Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Private Limited, One International Centre, Tower-3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone Road- West, Mumbai- 400013. Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mahenov Thakkar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Patil Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.4,86,77,518/- 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ao’) & Holding That Payment Of It Services To Be In The Nature Of Royalty Under Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act/ Fees For Technical Services Under Section 9(1)(Vii) Of The Act;

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete such other objection before or during the course of hearing.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a domestic company in which public is not substantially interested. The assessee company is engaged in the business of shipping

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ENTERPRISEDB SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 989/Pun/2023 & Co No. 008/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

disallowance on following two grounds; 1. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act without considering the facts as per Explanation 1 to subsection 1 of section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

195 Тахтап 117 (Вот.)\nii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312\n(SC)\niii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20\n(Gujarat)\niv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay)\nv. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013,\ndated 06.02.2015\n10. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

195 Тахтап 117 (Вот.)\nii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312\n(SC)\niii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20\n(Gujarat)\niv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay)\nv. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013,\ndated 06.02.2015\n10. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

195 Тахтап 117 (Вот.)\n11\nITA Nos.1121 to 1126/PUN/2024\nRajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha\nii. PCIT Vs. Lark Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 312\n(SC)\niii. Dhruv Parulbhai Patel Vs. ACIT (2014) 45 taxmann.com 20\n(Gujarat)\niv. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. R.B. Wadkar 268 ITR 332 (Bombay)\nv. M/s. Lark Chemicals P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA No.2636/M/2013,\ndated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable