EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

270%, when compared to the operating margin on total cost of the other division of the assessee at 7.39%, the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind in allowing the deduction under section 10A of the Act in view of the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) of the Act. The transactions which have been

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

270%, when compared to the operating margin on total cost of the other division of the assessee at 7.39%, the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind in allowing the deduction under section 10A of the Act in view of the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) of the Act. The transactions which have been

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

270%, when compared to the operating margin on total cost of the other division of the assessee at 7.39%, the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind in allowing the deduction under section 10A of the Act in view of the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80IA(8) and 80IA(10) of the Act. The transactions which have been

CUMMINS INDIA LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 15 Cummins India Limited. 34. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee during the year under consideration had claimed deduction of ₹ 3.89 crores under section 35(2AB) of the Act being 150% of expenditure incurred of ₹ 2.594 crores. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order had short

COPPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SATARA

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 34. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee during the year under consideration had claimed deduction of ₹ 3.89 crores under section 35(2AB) of the Act being 150% of expenditure incurred of ₹ 2.594 crores. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order had short granted deduction under section

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

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 34. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee during the year under consideration had claimed deduction of ₹ 3.89 crores under section 35(2AB) of the Act being 150% of expenditure incurred of ₹ 2.594 crores. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order had short granted deduction under section

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

disallowance of ₹ 70,31,561/- relating to contribution to the Environment Fund Liability under section 43B of the Act. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed revised computation of income and claimed the said amount as deductible. The plea of the assessee was that the Environment Relief Fund Liability is a contribution collected under Public Liability Fund

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

disallowance of ₹ 70,31,561/- relating to contribution to the Environment Fund Liability under section 43B of the Act. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed revised computation of income and claimed the said amount as deductible. The plea of the assessee was that the Environment Relief Fund Liability is a contribution collected under Public Liability Fund

RADHE RADHE LABOUR CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1589/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act. 9. The issue which arises is whether in cases picked up for limited scrutiny, can any other issue be decided without taking necessary permission from the concerned Commissioner? In this regard, first we will make reference to CBDT, which vide Instruction No.5/2016, dated 14.07.2016 had clearly pointed out that in the cases

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction of Health & education cess u/s 37 of the Act was considered under reported is in consequence of misreporting of income under section 270A(2) rws 270

TUKARAM MAHADEV SURYAVANSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 4(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.785/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Tukaram Mahadev Vs. Ito, Ward-4(5), Pune. Suryavanshi, 210 Ruby Industrial Premises Soc. Ltd., Chincholi Bandar, Mindspace, Malad West, Mumbai- 400064. Pan : Afops1105F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Anil Topiwala Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2024 Passed By Ld Addl./Jacit(A), Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Addl/Jcit(A) Kanpur-Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Learned Assistant Director Of Income-Tax Cpc- Bangalore Order Disallowing The Sum Of Rs. 55,10,270/- U/S 36 (1)(Va) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Being Employees Contribution To Provident Fund & Esic As Per Tax Audit Report Deposited

disallowing Rs.55,10,270/- as per Tax Audit Report being employees contribution to the PF & ESIC which is deposited beyond the due date specified under PF & ESIC Laws but before the due date of filing Income Tax Return under Section

THE SATARA ZILLA KRISHI BANK KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,SATARA vs. ACIT, SATARA, SATARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

270/- on account of disallowance of deduction under section 80P (2)(i) to the total income of the assessee on the ground

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1653/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., 1St Floor, Ge Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411006 …. Pan: Aabcb5730G Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

disallowed and addition made in the hands of the assessee. 5. The CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer holding that the amount was covered under „cess‟ and there was no provisions in the Act to exclude such case from the ambit of the provisions of section 43B of the Act. He further held that the assessee could claim

NITIN BHIMSEN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 9(1), PUNE

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

Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should clearly be stamped with “AIR case.” This should be immediately brought to the notice of all the officers working in your region. Yours faithfully, i- (Ajay Goyal) Director (ITA.II)” 7. Admittedly, the necessary approval had not been taken by the AO while widening the scope of inquiry. Though

SURENDRA BHIMSEN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

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

Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should clearly be stamped with “AIR case.” This should be immediately brought to the notice of all the officers working in your region. Yours faithfully, i- (Ajay Goyal) Director (ITA.II)” 7. Admittedly, the necessary approval had not been taken by the AO while widening the scope of inquiry. Though

NILESH VASANT SHENDE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.670/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Nilesh Vasant Shende, Mzsk & Associates Chartered Accountants, Level-3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune-411 001. Pan : Anxps3098L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

section 143(2) of the Act and the CBDT Circular should not create any hurdles on the AO in matters of scrutiny assessment once notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is issued. Therefore, it is the case of the Ld. DR that AO has all powers to examine any issue which he deems fit despite the restrictions imposed

LOKESH SADASHIV SHETTY,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

270 ITR 572 (AP). Further, he referred to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Best Plastics (P) Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 256 (Del) for the proposition that where the guidelines are laid down for selection of cases for scrutiny and if the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny

SHRIRAM SAHAKAI DUDH UTPADAK SANSTHA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, PANDHARPUR

In the result, all the ten appeals of the respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

270 ITR 572 (AP). Further, he referred to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. Best Plastics (P) Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 256 (Del) for the proposition that where the guidelines are laid down for selection of cases for scrutiny and if the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny