DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

35(1)/37 of Rs.14,37,06,712/-. (g) Disallowance of donation u/s 37(1) of Rs.5,50,000/-. (h) Disallowance of repairs to building, plant and machinery of Rs.1,16,36,450/-. 5 Disallowance of sales and promotion expenditure of Rs.2,90,94,637/-. (j) Disallowance of Corporate Guarantee Commission of Rs.1,20,29,793/-. (k) Disallowance of deduction

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. EPYGEN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee apart from placing heavy reliance on the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) also made reference to the written submissions filed during the assessment proceedings which are placed in paper book at page Nos. 98-114 and also the documents including registration certificate issued by Department of Scientific and Industrial

DCIT,CIRCLE-8 , PUNE vs. MAHALE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

DCIT CIRCLE 8 , PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

MINILEC INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT 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.690/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Minilec India Pvt. Ltd., 1073/1-2-3, At & Post Pirangut, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 412111 …. Pan:Aabcm2682E Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11(2), Pune

disallowed the claim. He further placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka in Tejas Networks Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2015) 60 taxmann.com 309 (Kar). 9. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that the issue now stands covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi

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

BHARAT FORGE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.13/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

1, Pune erred in not making a reference to the DSIR as per the provisions of Section 35(3) before confirming the disallowance of the deduction u/s. 35(2AB) to the extent of Rs.18,42,000/-. 3. The grounds of appeal No.1 to 1.5 raised by assessee are against disallowance made under section 14A of the Act r.w.s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

35(2AB) at Rs.5,74,79,168/- was disallowed. 53. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 54. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

STAR ENGINEERS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1435/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

disallowed under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The CIT(A) had restricted the same to ₹ 29,11,882/-, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 10. The Pune Bench of Tribunal in Minilec India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) on similar issue of claim of weighted deduction in the absence of any form No.3CL received from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

disallowed the amount of Rs.5,15,77,309/- on account of excess deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. 46. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: "Decision I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, grounds of appeal and submission of the appellant I find

AJINKYA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SEVAK SAH. PATSANSTHA, MARYADIT,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

35, are that the assessee is a patsanstha and\nengaged in accepting deposits from its members and in turn providing\ncredit facilities to its members. It provides its members with loans and\nearns interest thereon. The income of the assessee is eligible for claim of\ndeduction u/s 80P of the Income

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

35. Coming to the next issue of leased line charges, he referred to the order of Assessing Officer, wherein he has talked about process royalty and equipment royalty. He then referred to section 9(1)(vi) Explanation 2(iii) and 2(iva) of the Act and pointed out that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Verizone Communications Singapore

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

35. Coming to the next issue of leased line charges, he referred to the order of Assessing Officer, wherein he has talked about process royalty and equipment royalty. He then referred to section 9(1)(vi) Explanation 2(iii) and 2(iva) of the Act and pointed out that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Verizone Communications Singapore

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

35. Coming to the next issue of leased line charges, he referred to the order of Assessing Officer, wherein he has talked about process royalty and equipment royalty. He then referred to section 9(1)(vi) Explanation 2(iii) and 2(iva) of the Act and pointed out that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Verizone Communications Singapore

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

35. Coming to the next issue of leased line charges, he referred to the order of Assessing Officer, wherein he has talked about process royalty and equipment royalty. He then referred to section 9(1)(vi) Explanation 2(iii) and 2(iva) of the Act and pointed out that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Verizone Communications Singapore

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

35. On the other hand, the grounds raised by the Revenue (which were subsequently revised) in Appeal No.17/PUN/2015 reads as under: “1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s.40A(2)(b) on account of payment on rent in excess made to M.N. Navale (Bigger

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

35. On the other hand, the grounds raised by the Revenue (which were subsequently revised) in Appeal No.17/PUN/2015 reads as under: “1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s.40A(2)(b) on account of payment on rent in excess made to M.N. Navale (Bigger