DCIT, CIRCLE-8 vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTIONS (‘ESOP’) EXPENDITURE. 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction in respect of ESOP expenditure of Rs.7,57,14,428 under section 37

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANACE LTD,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTIONS (‘ESOP’) EXPENDITURE. 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction in respect of ESOP expenditure of Rs.7,57,14,428 under section 37

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTIONS (‘ESOP’) EXPENDITURE. 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction in respect of ESOP expenditure of Rs.7,57,14,428 under section 37

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTIONS ('ESOP') EXPENDITURE. 2.1. The CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction in respect of ESOP expenditure of Rs.14,98,37,670 under section

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTIONS ('ESOP') EXPENDITURE. 2.1. The CIT(A) erred in not allowing deduction in respect of ESOP expenditure of Rs.14,98,37,670 under section

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

sections": [ "263", "143(3)", "135", "37(1)", "142(1)", "80G", "80G(5)", "80G(1)", "37", "30", "36", "144C(13)", "143(2)", "115JB", "115JJB" ], "issues": "Whether CSR expenditure, even if disallowed

ARISTON GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC AND THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1680/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ariston Group India Private The Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department, 1St Floor, Office No.103, V National Faceless Mayfai Tower, Wakdewadi, S. Assessment Centre, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. Delhi(“Nfac”), The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Pan: Aaoca7042D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 18.06.2024 For A.Y.2020- 21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ariston Group India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ariston India' Or 'The Appellant) Prefers An Appeal For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Against

disallowance of Management services fee under section 37(1) of the Act: 6.1 The Ld. AO pursuant to the direction

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

disallowance of expenditure in violation of the MCI Regulations which come in the ambit of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and CBDT

FCA INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED (SURVIVING ENTITY AFTER THE MERGER OF PCA MOTORS PVT LTD),PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) and section 37 of the Act (i.e. disallowed twice) even though the Appellant had already

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTAMT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.775/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.758/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......Cross Objector बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019

disallowance made by the ld AO by relying on the CBDT Circular No.5/2012 without appreciating the fact that the said Circular came into effect from 1 August 2012 and hence expenses incurred upto 31 July 2012 amounting to Rs 76,12,222 should be allowed under section 37

KISHOR GANPAT KARANDE,,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, JALNA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act. Further, he found that the assessee did not utilize the amount of capital gain in purchasing of new asset before filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, even not deposited in any capital gains accounts scheme. The assessee contended that he is illiterate, no knowledge of Income

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

disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 37(1).” We also find that the AO for assessment

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

Disallowance under section 10AA of the Act: 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT erred in denying the deduction claimed under section 10AA of the Act by INR 263,46,37

CHANDRASHEKAHAR ASHOK JOSHI,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 690/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 Chandrashekhar Ashok Joshi Krishnakunj, Makhmalabad Naka, Rajdal Colony, Panchwati,Nashik – 422003 . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aaxpj0797N बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle – 1, Nashik द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Defies The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 14/02/2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 20/03/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-13. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 12

section 37(1) r.w.s. 43B of the Act. 3. The grounds of appeal raised for adjudication are; 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.25,00,000/- towards disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

37(1) of the Act, they are specifically excluded in clarification issued. There is no restriction on an expenditure being claimed under above sections to be exempt, as long as it satisfies necessary conditions under section 30 to 36 of the Act, for computing income under the head, “Income from Business and Profession”. 16. For claiming benefit under section

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

37(1) is a little wider than that of Section 57(iii), but we do not see how that can make any difference in the true interpretation of Section 57(iii) The language of Section 57(iii) is clear and unambiguous and it has to be construed according to its plain natural meaning and merely because a slightly wider phraseology