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

disallowance of weighted deduction claimed on expenditure incurred outside India. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred outside India on R&D u/s 35(1)(iv) although such claim was not under the same section

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

disallowance of weighted deduction claimed on expenditure incurred outside India. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred outside India on R&D u/s 35(1)(iv) although such claim was not under the same section

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

iv) of the Act and also directed the Assessing Officer to quantify the revenue expenditure allowable under section 35(1)(i) / 37(1) of the Act. 7. The next issue which was considered by the CIT(A) was the disallowance

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

iv) of the Act and also directed the Assessing Officer to quantify the revenue expenditure allowable under section 35(1)(i) / 37(1) of the Act. 7. The next issue which was considered by the CIT(A) was the disallowance

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the „Act‟). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT(A)-7, Pune erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the ITA, 1961 amounting to Rs.93,45,333 without appreciating the fact that

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

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

disallowance of weighted deduction claimed on expenditure incurred outside India. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred outside India on R&D u/s 35(1)(iv) although such claim was not under the same section

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

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

section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Further, the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act was also confirmed

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

M/S. SHIVAMM INDUSTRIES,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.393/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Shivamm Industries, The Dy.Commissioner Of Plot 76, Arihant Heights, Sector Vs Income Tax, Circle-8, No.25, Pradhikaran Nigdi, Pune. Pune – 411044. Pan: Aaefs 0458 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 15/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee I.E. Shivamm Industries For A.Y. 2013-14 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Of Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 21.03.2023 Emanating From Assessing Officer’S Order Under Section 154 Of The Act Dated 22.03.2021. The Ground Of Appeal Are As Under : “1. The Order Dated 21/03/2023 Bearing No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051048828[L] Passed Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 By The Hon’Ble Cit[Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Is Excessive, M/S.Shivamm Industries [A]

iv) due to `increase in income’ is jettisoned. 12. Another argument point was put forth on behalf of the assessee that the assessee did not claim any deduction in the Profit and loss account of the amount under consideration and hence no disallowance should have been made. This argument is again bereft of force. The assessee claimed deduction for salary

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

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

disallowance. 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the order of Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Cummins India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 576 (Pune – Trib.). He pointed out that facility has been approved by DSIR and certificate in Form No.3CL has been

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

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

disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2011- 12. The Tribunal decided this issue in favour of assessee by observing as under : “16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue before us is vis-à-vis weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The assessee had recognized

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

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