EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

Disallowance under section 10AA of the Act : 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO, erred in reducing the deduction under section 10AA of the Act by INR 1,66,90,42,654 by invoking the provisions of section 10AA(9) read with section 80IA(10) of the Act, alleging that the Appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(i) Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that Assessee had made payment to non-resident for acquiring software which amounts to royalty and hence falls within the purview of section royalty and hence falls within the purview of section 9(1)(vi) Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence the Assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(i) Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that Assessee had made payment to non-resident for acquiring software which amounts to royalty and hence falls within the purview of section royalty and hence falls within the purview of section 9(1)(vi) Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence the Assessee

R&DE (ENGRS) EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed under section 143 (1) by the CPC while processing the return. To that extent the arguments of the appellant is found to be correct. Hence The AO is also directed to re compute the taxable income after allowing the eligible claim of the applicant under section 80P(2)(a) of the act. The appellant succeeds in this ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

2%. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us challenging the correctness of the finding of the ld. CIT(A). 7. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the transaction of corporate guarantee is international transaction within the meaning of provisions of section 92B of the Act. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) ought

AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA GRAMSEVAKANCHI SAHAKAR PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the\nview that for the reasons stated hereinafter, the question of law that\narises for consideration before us must be answered against the\nRevenue and in favour of the assessee. The permissible deduction\nthat is envisaged under Section 80P(2) of the I.T. Act for a Co-\noperative Society

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

disallow by restricting the deduction to ordinary profit. The contention of assessee is that the AO did not make any addition in terms of sub-section (7) of section 10A of the Act and enhancement proposed by the CIT(A) is not warranted u/s. 251(2

M/S. HONEWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

disallow by restricting the deduction to ordinary profit. The contention of assessee is that the AO did not make any addition in terms of sub-section (7) of section 10A of the Act and enhancement proposed by the CIT(A) is not warranted u/s. 251(2

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, MAN,SATARA

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

2, 4,\n5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are allowed.\nH. In the result, appeal is partly allowed.\"\n4. The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC\nand is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:\n\"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA vs. SHRI SIDDHANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYA DAHIWADI, TAL. MAN SATARA

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

2, 4,\n5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are allowed.\nH. In the result, appeal is partly allowed.\"\nThe Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC\nand is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:\n\"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 80P(2)(a)(i)/80(P(2)(d) of the Act\nbe not disallowed and added back as income from other sources. The show\ncause notice issued by the Ld. AO remained uncomplied with.\n2.1 Before the Ld. AO, taking support from the catena of decisions\npronounced by various judicial forums on the impugned issue favorable\nthe assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

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

disallow by restricting the deduction to ordinary profit. The contention of assessee is that the AO did not make any addition in terms of sub- section (7) of section 10A of the Act and enhancement proposed by the CIT(A) is not warranted u/s. 251(2

M/S. HONEWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

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

disallow by restricting the deduction to ordinary profit. The contention of assessee is that the AO did not make any addition in terms of sub- section (7) of section 10A of the Act and enhancement proposed by the CIT(A) is not warranted u/s. 251(2

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

section 13 of the Act. The said amount was disallowed as not deductible u/s.40A(2)(b) r.w.s.37(1) of the Act while computing the business income of the assessee. 7

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of Rs.1,20,000/- in these peculiar circumstances. 4. The assessee does not press for his third substantive ground of challenging section 41(1) - cession of liability addition of Rs.50,000/- representing deposits received from M/s. Shubha Associates keeping in mind the smallness of the amount. Rejected accordingly. 5. Lastly comes the long term capital gains addition issue

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of section 40 of the Act. The relevant part of Hon‘ble Supreme Court judgment is as under: 7. The above legislative history of the Finance Acts, as also the practice, would appear to indicate that the term ―Income tax‖ as employed in Section 2

VIRENDRA SINGH SAINI,HARYANA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, BENGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

7 ‘143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

disallowances of Rs.62,169/- and Rs.60,93,292/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of late payment of ESIC and PF beyond the period prescribed under the ESIC and PF Acts respectively. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing the Ground No. 3 of the assessee in respect of the addition of Rs.43,20,39,280/- made