DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD., (FORMERLY: BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LTD.,),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.356/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, while computing taxable income, was not accepted. The assessee also explained that the said provision made on adhoc basis was reversed in the subsequent year and wherever payment was made to the specific party, tax was deducted at source and paid to the credit of Central Government. The JCIT however

M/S. NYATI BUILDERS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1242/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 9, Pune …. Vs. M/S. Ksh International Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.11/3, 11/4, Vill-Birdewadi, Chakan, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan:Aaacb1897K

disallowance under section 14A of the Act was not permissible and the appeal of Revenue was dismissed. The Revenue filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide judgment dated 08.02.2019 in item No.33 Court No.11 Section XIV, in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos.2755/2019, it was held that In view of the decision of this Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KSH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1242/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 9, Pune …. Vs. M/S. Ksh International Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.11/3, 11/4, Vill-Birdewadi, Chakan, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan:Aaacb1897K

disallowance under section 14A of the Act was not permissible and the appeal of Revenue was dismissed. The Revenue filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide judgment dated 08.02.2019 in item No.33 Court No.11 Section XIV, in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos.2755/2019, it was held that In view of the decision of this Court

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

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1242/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 9, Pune …. Vs. M/S. Ksh International Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.11/3, 11/4, Vill-Birdewadi, Chakan, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tal-Khed, Pune – 410501 Pan:Aaacb1897K

disallowance under section 14A of the Act was not permissible and the appeal of Revenue was dismissed. The Revenue filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide judgment dated 08.02.2019 in item No.33 Court No.11 Section XIV, in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos.2755/2019, it was held that In view of the decision of this Court

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,PUNE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) challenging intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act with a delay which was condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) challenging intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act with a delay which was condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) challenging intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act with a delay which was condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) challenging intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act with a delay which was condoned by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A). The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the decision of the Ld. AO and dismissed the assessee’s appeal for the reason that the assessee filed

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

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

disallowance for the earlier assessment years which were on the ground that the assessee which was following the mercantile system of banking had to pay tax on interest on accrual basis. 3.2 The issue eventually reached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, allowed the assessee's claim, upon which, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel

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

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

disallowance for the earlier assessment years which were on the ground that the assessee which was following the mercantile system of banking had to pay tax on interest on accrual basis. 3.2 The issue eventually reached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, allowed the assessee's claim, upon which, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel

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

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

disallowance for the earlier assessment years which were on the ground that the assessee which was following the mercantile system of banking had to pay tax on interest on accrual basis. 3.2 The issue eventually reached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, allowed the assessee's claim, upon which, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel

DCIT, CIRCLE-8 vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

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

disallowance for the earlier assessment years which were on the ground that the assessee which was following the mercantile system of banking had to pay tax on interest on accrual basis. 3.2 The issue eventually reached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, allowed the assessee's claim, upon which, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel

FCA INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED (SURVIVING ENTITY AFTER THE MERGER OF PCA MOTORS PVT LTD),PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'), against the 2 order dated 26 June 2024 issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC') (hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. NFAC'), under Section 250 of the Act on the grounds as set out herein: 1. General ground 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

disallowance for the earlier assessment years which were on the ground that the assessee which was following the mercantile system of banking had to pay tax on interest on accrual basis. 3.2 The issue eventually reached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, allowed the assessee's claim, upon which, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel

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

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

disallowance for the earlier assessment years which were on the ground that the assessee which was following the mercantile system of banking had to pay tax on interest on accrual basis. 3.2 The issue eventually reached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, allowed the assessee's claim, upon which, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel

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:

5% range as provided under the Proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 9 9. It is contended, inter-alia, that the A&M expenses was incurred by the appellant company for its own business purposes and in order to promote the sale of the products manufactured by the appellant company, no benefit had approved

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY.CIT, CIR.7, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact3467B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Tetra Pak India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’), Against The Order Dated 25 November 2010 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessing Officer’) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Dated 20 September 2010 Issued By The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Honorable Drp’), On The Following Grounds: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honorable Drp & Consequentially The Learned Ao Have: I Grounds Of Objections In Respect Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

253(1)(d) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), against the order dated 25 November 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 7 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Assessing Officer’) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act in pursuance of the directions dated 20 September 2010 issued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

253,214 under section 40(a)(ia) on software purchased and capitalized in the books of account of INR 3,755,358 while computing the taxable income of the Appellant due to non-submission of details of tax deducted at source and the Learned DRP erred in confirming the same. 1.2 Without prejudice to the ground 1.1 above, the Learned

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

253,214 under section 40(a)(ia) on software purchased and capitalized in the books of account of INR 3,755,358 while computing the taxable income of the Appellant due to non-submission of details of tax deducted at source and the Learned DRP erred in confirming the same. 1.2 Without prejudice to the ground 1.1 above, the Learned