BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

1 Option price 10 10 10 10 . Employees 100 100 120 80 7 compensation or . discount From the above table it can be noticed that the market price of the shares at the time of grant of option was Rs. 110 against the option price of `10, which resulted in discount at `100. With the vesting period of four years

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

1 Option price 10 10 10 10 . Employees 100 100 120 80 7 compensation or . discount From the above table it can be noticed that the market price of the shares at the time of grant of option was Rs. 110 against the option price of `10, which resulted in discount at `100. With the vesting period of four years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANACE LTD,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

1 Option price 10 10 10 10 . Employees 100 100 120 80 7 compensation or . discount From the above table it can be noticed that the market price of the shares at the time of grant of option was Rs. 110 against the option price of `10, which resulted in discount at `100. With the vesting period of four years

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

1) of the Act. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncement we allow the ground of appeal of the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 1392/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2010-11 is allowed. 7. Both the parties, at the time of hearing, submitted that this issue also finds place in ITA No. 1393/PUN/2018. Under similar facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,, PUNE

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

1) of the Act. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncement we allow the ground of appeal of the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 1392/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2010-11 is allowed. 7. Both the parties, at the time of hearing, submitted that this issue also finds place in ITA No. 1393/PUN/2018. Under similar facts

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

disallowance u/s. 35AB. The Hon'ble ITAT vide appeal 968/PN/03 remanded back the matter to the AO stating that adjudication on admissibility of the said deduction can only be done in the first year of the deduction. Now the first year i.e. the FY 1994-95 relevant to the AY 1995-96 the AO reopened the assessment proceedings

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

1)(iii) is warranted. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality and perversity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any merits in the ground of appeal no.2 and 3 filed by the Revenue. Hence, the ground of appeal no.2 and 3 filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 15. Ground of appeal no.4

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR BUILDER MUMBAI REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

1)(iii) is warranted. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality and perversity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any merits in the ground of appeal no.2 and 3 filed by the Revenue. Hence, the ground of appeal no.2 and 3 filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 15. Ground of appeal no.4

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

1)(iii) is warranted. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality and perversity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we do not find any merits in the ground of appeal no.2 and 3 filed by the Revenue. Hence, the ground of appeal no.2 and 3 filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 15. Ground of appeal no.4

COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

disallowed the claim as discussed in paras 5.1 and 5.2. 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Considering the fact that the said alternate claim is not made in original return of income, the Assessing Officer did not allow same. The Assessing Officer rejected the main claim u/s 35(2AB) of the Act for want of the approval of the DSIR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. IAC INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

221,272 to (“IAC Shanghai”). The assessee selected TNMM for benchmarking the said international transactions of management fee with IAC Shanghai which was not acceptable to the Ld. TPO. The Ld. TPO therefore issued a show cause notice to the assessee proposing to make an adjustment to the value of international transaction pertaining to payment of management fees amounting

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTAMT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.775/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.758/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......Cross Objector बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in both on facts and in law in passing the order. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 9.10 crore on account of Guarantee Fee income by holding that corporate guarantee

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

221/- were disallowed, in view of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the income of assessee. 7. The CIT(A) noted that the plea of assessee first was that payment was fees and not rent and second, it was that the said payment was in the nature of cess

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

221/- were disallowed, in view of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added to the income of assessee. 7. The CIT(A) noted that the plea of assessee first was that payment was fees and not rent and second, it was that the said payment was in the nature of cess

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

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

disallowance of depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not in appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same. 9. So far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/- is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee by observing

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPN. PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance of depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not in appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same. 9. So far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/- is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee by observing

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance of depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not in appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same. 9. So far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/- is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee by observing

PUSPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE, PUNE

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

1. On the facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions and the scheme of the Act it be held that it be held that the disallowance made of Rs. 2,19,348/- u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D(2)(iii) of 2 the Income Tax Rules is not in accordance with provisions