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

202 to 222 of the paper book. However, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance in relation to the specified parties but restricted the overall disallowance to 10% of the total risk inspection charges. Thus, against the total disallowance of Rs. 6,72,09,983/- the assessee got relief of Rs. 3,36,29,983/- at the first appellate level

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

202 to 222 of the paper book. However, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance in relation to the specified parties but restricted the overall disallowance to 10% of the total risk inspection charges. Thus, against the total disallowance of Rs. 6,72,09,983/- the assessee got relief of Rs. 3,36,29,983/- at the first appellate level

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

disallowance of advertising and marketing expenses of Rs.2,47,13,051/-. The ld. SR. Counsel submitted that these expenses represent the amounts spent on various trade promotion schemes which are run by the appellant company to promote the sales of its products. The ld. Sr. Counsel had taken us through the contentions raised before the Hon’ble DRP, while reiterating

SHREE RAM CARGO PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(5), PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SHANKAR SHET ROAD, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1568/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Ram Cargo Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(5), 3-A & B, Archies Court, Pune Shankar Shet Road, Pune 411 037 Maharashtra Pan : Aalcs3844A Appellant Respondent

disallow 20% of the payments made u/s 40A(3) in the process of assessment. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 17,90,571/- and ground no.1 is decided in favour of the assessee. CIT vs Crescent Export Syndicate in ITA No. 202 of 2008 dated 30.7.2008 – Calcutta High Court “It also appears that the purchases have been held

AIS SHIVAJI MEMORIAL SOCIETYS EMPLOYEES COOP CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139” 7. He accordingly submitted that when the return was processed

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

202 Taxman 166 (All) In this case advance was given to the interested person (Treasurer) as prescribed u/s. 13(3) of the Act without any security. No details of interest rate were given. The Hon’ble Court held that there violation of section 13(3)/13(l)(c) and hence the society was not entitled to exemption

BIRLASOFT LTD,(EARLIER KNOWN AS KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

202-13. 2. The brief facts relating to the issue on hand are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of on-site and off-shore software development serving numerous customers and industries. The assessee declared exempt income of Rs. 3,43,97,776/- on account of dividend and disallowed on its own expenditure

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. YASH ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.159/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs . Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Cross Objection No.01/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.159/Pun/2018) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs. Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.159/Pun/218 With Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No.01/Pun/2022 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, Pune’S Order Dated 17.10.2017 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Acit Cir-12/293/2017-18/284, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.2,43,29,955/- in his assessment order dated 30.12.2016, as under: “5. In Ground No.1 the appellant has contended that it be allowed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) as it has fulfilled the conditions stipulated under the relevant provisions. In its written submissions dated 12.08.2017, the appellant submitted that

R G DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 7,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of purchases and Rs.16,76,616/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act and determined the total income at Rs.1,81,00,970/-. 4. Since the assessee did not make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Aggrieved with such order

R G DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 7,PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of purchases and Rs.16,76,616/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act and determined the total income at Rs.1,81,00,970/-. 4. Since the assessee did not make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. Aggrieved with such order

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

ACIT, CIR.-6., PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPER LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2008 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-6, Pune …. Vs. Sakal Papers Ltd., 595, Budhawar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaccs7605Q

section 80IA. This action being not in accordance with the law it is prayed that the same may be allowed. 6. The issue in ground of appeal No.1 is against disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses of Jalgaon office. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had purchased building at Jalgaon for its Jalgaon edition of Daily

SAKAL PAPER LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIR.-6,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2008 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-6, Pune …. Vs. Sakal Papers Ltd., 595, Budhawar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaccs7605Q

section 80IA. This action being not in accordance with the law it is prayed that the same may be allowed. 6. The issue in ground of appeal No.1 is against disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses of Jalgaon office. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had purchased building at Jalgaon for its Jalgaon edition of Daily

ELECTRONICA MACHINE TOOLS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

disallowance of Rs. 6,58,81,508/- and Rs.2,93,22,475/- debited to the profit & loss account under the heads 3 Electronica Machine Tools Ltd. investment written off and irrecoverable loans/advances written. The ld. CIT(A) on this has held as follows:- 1. “I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed the expenditure incurred on Homologation amounting to INR 2,34,85,773 by considering it to be a capital expenditure. 7. That referring to the grounds of appeal filed in the appeal memo, learned Senior Counsel submitted that ground Nos. 1 and 2 are general grounds. Ground No. 3 is with regard to rejecting the combined transaction approach. Ground

HAVELI TALUKA VEEJ KAMGAR SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6 (1) PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

202/- from\nthe commission receipts of Rs.56,52,925/-, the Ld. AO added the amount\nof Rs.53,52,723/- to the income of the assessee as the income from other\nsources. The Ld. AO, therefore, completed the assessment on total income\nof Rs.62,37,716/- on 30.11.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act by making an\naddition of-(i) Rs.8

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

section 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and has added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed certain details, based on which the ld.CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer, who proposed an addition

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since