ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

255(4) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for consideration was as under – ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., ―Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT was right in holding that the entire amount of Rs.71,93,24,207/- as related to the cancellation of all the contracts

THE JANALAXMI COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowance of reversal provision for bad and doubtful debts reserves from A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2012-13 were reproduced wherein we note that the assessee started making provision for bad and doubtful debts from A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2014-15 to an extent of Rs.71,88,98,173/-. It is also noted that the assessee made net of reversal

BHARAT KESHAVLAL SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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

section 115BBE computation as well as regarding 43B disallowance, TDS claim vis- à-vis income offered to tax u/s.199(1) and deemed rent issue with 4 ITA.No.855/PUN/2019 Shri Bharat Keshavlal Shah, Pune. liberty to raise appropriate contentions before the Assessing Officer in consequential proceedings. Rejected in very terms. 7. This leaves us with the first and foremost issue

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

4, along with its sub paragraphs 4.1 to 47 deal with 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

FRANCOIS COMPRESSOR INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2504/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ………. अपीलाथ" / Francois Compressor India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.147/1(New), Lavale Road, Appellant Pirangut, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune – 412115. Pan : Aabcf0496K. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (2), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah. Revenue By : Shri Amol Kamat. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dt.31.08.2017 Passed Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under : The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Sale

disallowing the loss on foreign exchange variation by holding to be capital. The ld. AR contended that the loss on account of fluctuation foreign currency rate on ECB loan should be allowed as revenue deduction in irrespective of for what purpose the loan was utilized having regard to the provisions of section 43AA of the Act and the Accounting Standard

M/S. SAISIDHA SUGAR EQUIPMENT AND ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

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

section 37 is very much applicable herein. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee‟s foregoing arguments and find no merit therein. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee‟s impugned expenses nowhere relate to even its regular customers as it is evident from the perusal of case file. We find that this claim

M/S. SAISIDHA SUGAR EQUIPMENT & ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

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

section 37 is very much applicable herein. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee‟s foregoing arguments and find no merit therein. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee‟s impugned expenses nowhere relate to even its regular customers as it is evident from the perusal of case file. We find that this claim

SHREE GARUDA PLANT PRODUCTS LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, NASHIK

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.492/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik. Pan: Aaacg 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishint Gandhi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 19.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Nashik ["The Cit (A)" For Short] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Nashik, ["The Ao" For Short] Which Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Without Affording A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Invoking Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Act, Whereby A Disallowance Of Rs.12,81,831/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Appellant.

disallowance u/s 14A is called for. Accordingly Ground No.2 of the Assessee is allowed. ITA No.492/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products Ltd.[A] Ground Number 3 - Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) : 3. As per the Assessment order, the assessee has received Loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from Trenton Investment Company Pvt Ltd and Rs.11

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. YASH ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.159/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs . Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Cross Objection No.01/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.159/Pun/2018) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs. Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.159/Pun/218 With Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No.01/Pun/2022 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, Pune’S Order Dated 17.10.2017 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Acit Cir-12/293/2017-18/284, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.2,43,29,955/- in his assessment order dated 30.12.2016, as under: “5. In Ground No.1 the appellant has contended that it be allowed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) as it has fulfilled the conditions stipulated under the relevant provisions. In its written submissions dated 12.08.2017, the appellant submitted that

HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO.PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.570/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Lohia Jain House, Bhandarkar Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411045. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaach4226Q बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-11, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Vardhaman Jain Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2020 आदेश / Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp : This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 16.01.2017 On The Following Grounds As Originally Raised :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.6,13,115, Being Depreciation On Car. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Further Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of Rs.1,88,07,686 U/S 80Ia(4) Of The I T Act, 1961.” 2. At The Time Of Hearing Before Us, Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Have Agreed That The Issue Involved In Ground No.1 Of This Appeal Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Out Of The Depreciation On Car For Personal Use Of Directors Is Squarely Covered In Favour Of The Assessee By The Decision Of This Tribunal Rendered In Assessee’S Own Case For The Immediately Preceding Assessment Year I.E. A.Y. 2012-13 Vide

Section 10A for subsequent assessment years i.e. assessment years 2002‐03 and 2003‐04 and 2004‐05. Besides that, on consideration of the facts involved both the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) and the Tribunal have recorded a finding of fact that the SEEPZ unit is not formed by splitting up of the first unit.” 8. Further, in the case

S N CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.537/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

255, Vs. Bengaluru Shivdham Complex, Pune-Solapur Road, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028 PAN : ACLFS0647N (Appellant) Respondent) Appellant by Shri Sidharth Sinha Respondent by Shri Rajesh Gawali Date of hearing 05-05-2022 Date of pronouncement 05-05-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), National Faceless

M/S. SHI vs. HAKTI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,OSMANABADVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, NANDED

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shivshakti Shetkari Vs. Dcit, Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Circle-3, Limited, Nanded Washi Dist., Osmanabad. Pan : Aacts1082Q Appellant Respondent

4. It thus, emerges as an instance, wherein the learned lower authorities have not made any disallowance or addition pertaining to the sole reason of reopening. That being the case, we quote CIT vs. Jet Airways (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) that such reopening is not sustainable in law as follows: “5. The condition precedent to the exercise

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

4 10) The addition made by learned A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.1,18,82,797/- on account of credit in capital account of partner Shri Harleensingh Sethi u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 11) The addition made by learned A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.22,66,14,480/- on account

GRUPO ANTOLIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1207/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Grupo Antolin India Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Limited, B 25, Midc, Ranjangaon, Taluka: Shirur, Pune- 412220. Pan : Aaaca6730G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. D. Mistri Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Cit(A)- 13, Pune’S Order Dated 10.02.2017 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/45/2013-14/606 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee Pleads The Following Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal :-

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) assessment dated 30.05.2013 in very terms making the impugned adjustment as per the TPO’s findings. The assessee preferred appeal. We note that although the assessee had filed its relevant documents which already formed part of the case file, the CIT(A) sought for the field authorities’ remand report on 18.07.2014 directing the Assessing

MUZAFFER MAHMOOD KHAN,,AURANGABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

255 of the paper book. On perusal of the same, it shows that a 4 ITA No.895/PUN/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 question was raised by the AO at point No. 3, in response to the said notice the assessee gave reply dated 22-08-2016 which is at page No. 205 of the paper book wherein it was specifically stated that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. PATSON AGRO EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE CITY

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

255 No explanation given 3 BLUE WATER Not available 1,79,799 No explanation given LOGISTICS 4 B S Ply Wood Doors Not available 148,498 No explanation given Centers 5 Farmer Payment Not available 4,558 No explanation given 6 Freight payable Not available 3,33,230 No explanation given 7 Millenium Shipping Not available

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

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

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

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

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

disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.157.34 crores claimed on payment basis is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in this case. According to him, the provisions of section 36(1)(xii) are also not applicable to the assessee as the same are applicable