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

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

R&DE (ENGRS) EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed to which the assessee did not file any objection. The Ld. AO after considering the part reply of the assessee, for the reasons recorded in para 3.6 of the assessment order and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Co- operative Sale Society Vs. ITO reported in (2010) 188 Taxman

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

35) of the Act. The Assessing Officer thus, recorded satisfaction as to why the provisions of section 14A of the Act should not be applied after taking note of the fact that the assessee had disallowed sum of ₹ 39,76,231/-. The assessee submitted detailed working of disallowance made suo motu. It may be noted that no disallowance has been

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

disallowance of deduction to the assessee under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Where the 7 Competent Authority had granted approval / recognition after verification of all the details, then the claim of assessee for deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act cannot be ruled out only on the ground that the approval in the prescribed form No.3CM

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

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act is the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), Govt. of India. Information from DSIR reveals that the R&D unit of M/s HTTSPL (now merged with appellant company) was not approved u/s 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. The AO held that the Appellant Company did not enter into

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

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act is the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), Govt. of India. Information from DSIR reveals that the R&D unit of M/s HTTSPL (now merged with appellant company) was not approved u/s 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. The AO held that the Appellant Company did not enter into

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 but was u/s 35(2AB) by observing as under: “2.3 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant in light

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

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 but was u/s 35(2AB) by observing as under: “2.3 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant in light

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 but was u/s 35(2AB) by observing as under: “2.3 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant in light

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

disallowance of Rs.1,35,00,000/-. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 14A provides that resort to disallowance

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

2 raised in appeal by the Department is dismissed. 33. In ground No. 3 of appeal, the Department has assailed deleting of advertisement expenses Rs.37,70,543/-. Advertisement expenditure has been disallowed to the assessee merely for the reason that advertisement hoardings were put up in Surat and Thane where the assessee was not having any of its business outlets

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

2 raised in appeal by the Department is dismissed. 33. In ground No. 3 of appeal, the Department has assailed deleting of advertisement expenses Rs.37,70,543/-. Advertisement expenditure has been disallowed to the assessee merely for the reason that advertisement hoardings were put up in Surat and Thane where the assessee was not having any of its business outlets

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

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

2 of the appeal, the assessee has assailed disallowance of weighted deduction claimed in respect of expenditure on in-house research & development activities u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. We find that similar 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

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

2) of the Act. We, therefore, are of the considered view that Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee’s claim u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Act without examining the fact that business activity as required for the purpose of claiming section 35(1)(iv) of the Act has not commenced during the year under consideration and therefore conditions

AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA GRAMSEVAKANCHI SAHAKAR PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

35 of the Act. The Society is working as\nper provisions of co-operative societies Act 1960 & Bye laws prescribed by co-operative societies\nAct 1960, authenticated by District Deputy registrar Ahmednagar. The loan installments are\ndeducted from their salaries directly by the society.\nThe Honorable Supreme Court in civil appeal no 10245 of 2017 in the case

BHARAT FORGE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1),, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

2 of the appeal, the assessee has assailed disallowance of weighted deduction claimed in respect of expenditure on in-house research & development activities u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. We find that similar 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

BHARAT FORGE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

2 of the appeal, the assessee has assailed disallowance of weighted deduction claimed in respect of expenditure on in-house research & development activities u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. We find that similar 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