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

SHRI SANT SENA MAHARAJ NABHIK SAMAJACHI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA, MARYADIT,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRD-1(4), JALGAON, JALGAON

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 841/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Sant Sena Maharaj Nabhik Samajachi Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Behind Shani Mandir, Radhabai Chal, Chalisgaon – 424 101 Pan: Aabas8462N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer- 1(4), Jalgaon . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Abhay Avachat [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Shri R Y Balawade [‚Ld. Dr] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Instituted U/S 253(1) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] Challenges Din & Order No. Itba/Nfsc/S/250/2023- 24/1052715471(1) Dt. 10/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter].

sections wherein the disallowance can be made us 143(1)(a) of the Act are provided within it and as such the ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 10 Shri Sant Sena Maharaj Nabhik Samajachi Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit ITA No. 841/PUN/2023 AY 2019-20 deduction us 80P of the Act is not mentioned is not mentioned in the sub-clause

ROXILER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD5(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 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)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

209 ITR 63 (Bom.). 3. CIT-1 vs. AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd., [2012] 205 Taxman 11 (Mad.) (HC). 4. CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd., [2009] 317 ITR 249 (Del.) (HC). Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee had not filed the Audit Report in form 10CCB within the statutory time limit. Ld.DR submitted that hence

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

disallowance of depreciation of intangible assets claimed @25% coming to Rs.91,00,069/-; which in turn, stand rejected under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Revenue could hardly dispute that such a depreciation claim could not be rejected under section 40(a)(i) as held in PCIT Vs. Tally solutions P. Ltd., [2021] 430 ITR 527 (Karnataka). This

REINSHAW METRLOGY SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm आयकरअपऩलसं. / Ita No.1560/Pun/2017 निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Renishaw Metrology Systems Limited, The D.C.I.T., S.No. 283, Hissa No. 2, S.No. 284, Vs Circle-5, Hissa No. 2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Pune. Village Mann Taluka, Mulshi, District- Pune 411057. Pan No. Aabcr6361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain-Ar (Through Virtual) Revenue By Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav-Dr (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per:Shri Sonjoy Sarma, J.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune,(In Short, The Cit(A) In Relation To The Assessment Order Dated 23/03/2016 Passed By Dcit, Circle-5, Pune For The Assessment Year 2012-13.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo)/Assessing Officer (Ao) Has Erred & The Hon/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit(A)) Has Further Erred In Upholding/Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Tpo/Ao In: 1 Transfer Pricing General Ground 1.1 Making An Addition To The Appellant’S Total Income Based On The Provisions Of Chapter X Of The Act & Have Further Erred In Fact & In Law In Not Providing Any Reasons To Show That The Conditions Mentioned In Clauses (A) To (D) Of Section 92C(3) Of The

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed/furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that adjustment made is not in accordance with the law. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing

KISANMITRA WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,LATUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.358 & 359/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Kisanmitra Warehousing Private Limited, Vs. Adit, Cpc, Plot No.B-113, 114, 115, 117, Bengaluru Additional Midc, Latur, Maharashtra 413 531 Pan : Aaeck0739A Appellant Respondent

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(11A) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that filing of the prescribed Report in Form 10CCB before the due date of filing is only directory, placing reliance on the following decisions : a. CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries

KISANMITRA WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED ,LATUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.358 & 359/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2020-21 & 2021-22 Kisanmitra Warehousing Private Limited, Vs. Adit, Cpc, Plot No.B-113, 114, 115, 117, Bengaluru Additional Midc, Latur, Maharashtra 413 531 Pan : Aaeck0739A Appellant Respondent

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(11A) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) contending that filing of the prescribed Report in Form 10CCB before the due date of filing is only directory, placing reliance on the following decisions : a. CIT Vs. G.M. Knitting Industries

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in the context of commission exceeding Re. 18.00 crore paid by the Assessee during the relevant assessment year, even though the TDS on the commission paint was negligible. Paragraph 5 deals with the expenditure incurred fowants research and development Paragraph 6 deals with the issue of depreciation on UPS. Finally, paragraph 7 deals with

CREDAI-PUNE METRO,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, PUNE

section 11 exemption in entirety which has been disallowed in the corresponding assessments but accepted in part to the extent of “mutuality” benefit only in the CIT(A)’s order. The Revenue’s endeavour in both of its cross appeals is that the assessee nowhere fulfil the three monetary conditions of being a “mutual” organization in light of Bangalore Club

INCOME TAX OFFICERV(EXEMPTION) WARD 2, PUNE vs. CREDIA PUNE METRO , PUNE

section 11 exemption in entirety which has been disallowed in the corresponding assessments but accepted in part to the extent of “mutuality” benefit only in the CIT(A)’s order. The Revenue’s endeavour in both of its cross appeals is that the assessee nowhere fulfil the three monetary conditions of being a “mutual” organization in light of Bangalore Club

INCOME TAX OFFICERV(EXEMPTION) WARD 2, PUNE vs. CREDIA METRO PUNE, PUNE

section 11 exemption in entirety which has been disallowed in the corresponding assessments but accepted in part to the extent of “mutuality” benefit only in the CIT(A)’s order. The Revenue’s endeavour in both of its cross appeals is that the assessee nowhere fulfil the three monetary conditions of being a “mutual” organization in light of Bangalore Club

CREDAI - PUNE METRO,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE

section 11 exemption in entirety which has been disallowed in the corresponding assessments but accepted in part to the extent of “mutuality” benefit only in the CIT(A)’s order. The Revenue’s endeavour in both of its cross appeals is that the assessee nowhere fulfil the three monetary conditions of being a “mutual” organization in light of Bangalore Club

MAHARASHTRA ENGINEERING ,,KOLHAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -1,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

209 PAN; AACFM 4101 G Appellant Vs. Pr. C.I.T., I, Kolhapur Respondent Appellant by: Shri Rajesh Shah Respondent by: Shri Deepak Garg Date of hearing: 18-02-2020 Date of Pronouncement: 20-02-2020 ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned Pr. CIT-I, Kolhapur, in Appeal

URULIKANCHAN GRAMIN BIGARSHETY SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed the assessee’s sec.80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim of Rs.89,40,209/- representing interest income derived from it’s investments made in various cooperative banks. 3 ITA.No.555/PUN./2023 4. Learned CIT-DR vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the NFAC has rightly affirmed the assessment findings to this effect since such an income could hardly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SULZER INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, CO No.04/PUN/2021 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 246/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circl-6, Pune .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Sulzer India Pvt. Ltd. Gat No.304, At Post-Kondhapuri, Off Pune Nagar Road, Taluka- Shirur, Pune-412 209 Pan : Aaacs7876D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

209 PAN : AAACS7876D ..… प्रत्याक्षेपक/ Cross objector बनाम / V/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circl-6, Pune …………प्रत्यथी / Respondent CO No.04/PUN/2021 A.Y.2013-14 Assessee by : Shri Ronak Doshi Revenue by : Shri Mahadevan A M Krishnan सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 05.05.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 07.05.2021 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : Both, the appeal and cross

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

disallowed the\ndeduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)/80P(2)(d) of the Act\namounting to Rs.3,04,88,392/- treating the same as other income'.\nAccordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment on 28.09.2021 u/s\n143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.3,04,88,392/- as\nincome from other sources

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance has formed the basis of Imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be." In this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance has formed the basis of Imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be." In this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

209/-. Thereafter, the return was revised twice. The assessee claimed deduction u/s.10AA. The assessment was completed by determining the total income, under the regular provisions of the Act, at Rs.766,09,96,530/-. I. SET OFF OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY 3. The first major issued raised by the assessee, through ground no. 9, is against