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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

disallowance on account of Product Development expenses amounting to Rs.2,25,42,606/-. 10.1 Relevant facts on this issue include that the assessee an amount of Rs.19,08,48,208/- has been claimed as revenue expenditure u/s.35(2AB)of the Act. AO did not allow the weighted deduction of the expenses incurred prior to 03-08-2010 (approval date

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

disallowance on account of Product Development expenses amounting to Rs.2,25,42,606/-. 10.1 Relevant facts on this issue include that the assessee an amount of Rs.19,08,48,208/- has been claimed as revenue expenditure u/s.35(2AB)of the Act. AO did not allow the weighted deduction of the expenses incurred prior to 03-08-2010 (approval date

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

disallowance on account of Product Development expenses amounting to Rs.2,25,42,606/-. 10.1 Relevant facts on this issue include that the assessee an amount of Rs.19,08,48,208/- has been claimed as revenue expenditure u/s.35(2AB)of the Act. AO did not allow the weighted deduction of the expenses incurred prior to 03-08-2010 (approval date

JAYA HIND INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

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

disallowed the claim treated the same as capital expenditure. 3. Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that it is a case of substitution of old asset by new asset and the expenditure did not fall within

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

35A-CTS, N-283-A 116, Sai Shobhan Building, vs. Raver Care Bldg., Opp. Yash Behind Janlaxmi Bank, Plaza, Pimprala Road, Gadkari Chowk, JALGAON – 425 001. NASHIK – 422 002. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR For Assessee : Shri Sanket M Joshi. Date of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.12.2024 ORDER PER RAMA KANTA PANDA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

35A-CTS, N-283-A 116, Sai Shobhan Building, vs. Raver Care Bldg., Opp. Yash Behind Janlaxmi Bank, Plaza, Pimprala Road, Gadkari Chowk, JALGAON – 425 001. NASHIK – 422 002. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR For Assessee : Shri Sanket M Joshi. Date of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.12.2024 ORDER PER RAMA KANTA PANDA