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

disallowance of ₹ 70,31,561/- relating to contribution to the Environment Fund Liability under section 43B of the Act. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed revised computation of income and claimed the said amount as deductible. The plea of the assessee was that the Environment Relief Fund Liability is a contribution collected under Public Liability Fund

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

disallowance of ₹ 70,31,561/- relating to contribution to the Environment Fund Liability under section 43B of the Act. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed revised computation of income and claimed the said amount as deductible. The plea of the assessee was that the Environment Relief Fund Liability is a contribution collected under Public Liability Fund

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

section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the Assessing Officer was not accepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect. Further, while recording such a satisfaction, the nature of the loan taken by the assessee for purchasing

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1653/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., 1St Floor, Ge Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411006 …. Pan: Aabcb5730G Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

disallowed and addition made in the hands of the assessee. 5. The CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer holding that the amount was covered under „cess‟ and there was no provisions in the Act to exclude such case from the ambit of the provisions of section 43B of the Act. He further held that the assessee could claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRADDHA CONSTRUCTIONS & POWER GENERATION PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.459 & 460/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 वष"

disallowed by the AO. 4. The order of Ld.CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated relevant facts are that assessee is a company engaged in the business of execution of Civil contracts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRADDHA CONSTRUCTIONS & POWER GENERATION PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.459 & 460/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 वष"

disallowed by the AO. 4. The order of Ld.CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated relevant facts are that assessee is a company engaged in the business of execution of Civil contracts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. VIVA SWARAJ,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.37/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 3, Pune …. Vs.

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act at ₹ 40,85,833/-. The assessee had made interest free advances to its sister concerns totaling ₹ 4.34 crores. The assessee on the other hand, had raised loans from State Bank of India to the tune of ₹ 15.39 crores, on which finance cost of ₹ 1,66,57,556/- was incurred. The Assessing Officer

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). The term "business" used in sub-sec.(5) section 801A in our humble opinion is confined to the independent undertaking and cannot get merged with the other businesses. In Sec. 80IA(2), for claiming deduction undertaking" or "Enterprise" as such is to be considered. Sec 80LAC) is charging sections

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

206, wherein section 14 of the Copy Right Act has been referred to, which explains the meaning of copyright and vide paras 20 and 21, the issue has been explained and decided in favour of assessee and it has been held that the issue has to be decided in the light of definition of ‘royalty’, as contained in DTAA read

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

206, wherein section 14 of the Copy Right Act has been referred to, which explains the meaning of copyright and vide paras 20 and 21, the issue has been explained and decided in favour of assessee and it has been held that the issue has to be decided in the light of definition of ‘royalty’, as contained in DTAA read

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

206, wherein section 14 of the Copy Right Act has been referred to, which explains the meaning of copyright and vide paras 20 and 21, the issue has been explained and decided in favour of assessee and it has been held that the issue has to be decided in the light of definition of ‘royalty’, as contained in DTAA read

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

206, wherein section 14 of the Copy Right Act has been referred to, which explains the meaning of copyright and vide paras 20 and 21, the issue has been explained and decided in favour of assessee and it has been held that the issue has to be decided in the light of definition of ‘royalty’, as contained in DTAA read

SUNITA SURESH JADHAV,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.112/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314 has taken suo motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of COVID-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that could be faced by the litigants across the country and extended the time limit for filing of the appeals. I, therefore condone

ASHOK S. AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1227/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

disallowance made in the hands of assessee. He further pointed out that penal provisions are to be interpreted strictly and penalty for concealment could be levied only if it fits into four corners of law. He further placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

206 pages and also relied\non the following decisions :\n1. Shri Jairam Education Society Vs. PCIT – ITA Nos.90 & 548/Ind/2019,\ndated 13.10.2021\n2. CIT (Central) Vs. Shikshan Prasarak JMandali (2017) 86 taxmjann.com 7\n(Bombay)\n3. CIT(Exemptions), Pune Vs. Audyogik Shikshan Mandal (2019) 101\ntaxmann.com 247 (Bombay)\n4. Maa Jagat Janani Seva Trust Vs. CIT(E) – ITA No.248/CTK/2023, dated\n16.07.2024

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

disallowance of ₹ 70,31,561/- relating to contribution to the Environment Fund Liability under section 43B of the Act. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed revised computation of income and claimed the said amount as deductible. The plea of the assessee was that the Environment Relief Fund Liability is a contribution collected under Public Liability Fund

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

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

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

206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). The term "business" used In sub-sec.(5) section 80IA in our humble opinion is confined to the independent undertaking and cannot get merged with the other businesses. In Sec. 80IA(2), for claiming deduction "undertaking" or "Enterprise" as such is to be considered. Sec.801A(2) is charging sections

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). The term "business" used In sub-sec.(5) section 80IA in our humble opinion is confined to the independent undertaking and cannot get merged with the other businesses. In Sec. 80IA(2), for claiming deduction "undertaking" or "Enterprise" as such is to be considered. Sec.801A(2) is charging sections

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

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

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

206 (Ker) which has been followed by the Ld. CIT(A). The term "business" used In sub-sec.(5) section 80IA in our humble opinion is confined to the independent undertaking and cannot get merged with the other businesses. In Sec. 80IA(2), for claiming deduction "undertaking" or "Enterprise" as such is to be considered. Sec.801A(2) is charging sections