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

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

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

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

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

disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) and the\ndisallowance of depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not\nin appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same.\n9.\nSo far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/-\nis concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part

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

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

1)(viii) deduction. He therefore sought not to press the above latter issue subject to all just exceptions. Ordered accordingly. 4. Both the learned representatives next invited our attention to the PCIT’s revision directions qua the instant former issue of accrual of income on assessee’s non- performing assets “NPAs” as under : 6 ITA.No.413/PUN./2022 Bajaj Finance Limited

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

221 TaxmaN14 dated 28th November, 2013 wherein it is held inter-alia as under:- FACTS • On basis of some information from the Investigation Wing that assessee was identified as one of beneficiaries who had received bogus entries, notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee and the assessee was required to furnish information in respect of persons

INTERVALVE POONAWALLA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

section 14A read with Rule 8D made the disallowance of Rs.4,40,375/- which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Therefore, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty on this amount. 4. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC restricted the disallowance of depreciation on Helicopter to 1/7th of Rs.2,23,57,241/- i.e. Rs.31,93,891/- in light

MAGARPATTA TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2945/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd., 13, Megaspace, Sholapur Bazar Road, Off East Street, Camp, Pune-411001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabcm2461K बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-14, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Sakharam Sable Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 9, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 30.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “A) The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.3,86,352/- On Account Of Disallowance U/S 14A Read With Rule- 8(D), While The Appellant Company Has Not Received Any Sum By Way Of Exempt Income. Further, The Appellant Company Has Not Made Any Additional Investments Generating Exempt Income During The Year. The Company Has Not Utilized Any Borrowed Funds For Investments. On The Similar Facts, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Deleted The Disallowance For A.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12. The Same Has Been Upheld By Itat (Pune Bench) For A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, In The Light Of Various Judicial Decisions, This Disallowance Being Unwarranted Needs Cancellation. B) The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Modify, Expand The Ground(S) Of Appeal & Lay/Produce The Evidence(S) At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act rejecting the explanation of the appellant that the provisions of section 14A of the Act have no application in the absence of any exempt income. 5. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 6. The ld. AR, during the course of hearing

BHIMASHANKAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 379/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

221/- on account of disallowance u/s.37(1) of the Act for excessive cane price paid to members & non-members, Rs.1,12,38,600/- on account of sugar sale at concessional rate, Rs.12,61,374/- on account of VSI A.Y.2013-14 contribution and Rs.12,37,350/- on account of Chief Minister Relief Fund respectively. 4. The Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted