AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

4) Where registration or provisional registration of a trust or an\ninstitution has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of\nsub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12AA, as the\ncase may be, and subsequently,—\n(a) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has noticed occurrence\nof one or more specified

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

4 The above decisions clearly explains the law that section 37(1) and section BOG are not correlated. It is undisputed fact that CSR expenditure is not allowable as business expenditure u/s 37 and we have duly disallowed

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction of Health & education cess u/s 37 of the Act was considered under reported is in consequence of misreporting of income under section 270A(2) rws 270(9) of the Act. 5.2 For the purpose of evaluating the correctness of rival submissions addressed we deem it apposite to extract section 270A & 270AA of the Act herein below: 270A

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 37(1) of the Act. 2.2. The CIT(A) has further in erred not allowing deduction for ESOP expenditure on the basis of the perquisite value

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 37(1) of the Act. 2.2. The CIT(A) has further in erred not allowing deduction for ESOP expenditure on the basis of the perquisite value

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

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

37,895/-, assessment year wise, in relation to the corresponding exempt income(s) of Rs.42,964/- and Rs.42,911/-; respectively. Suffice to say, the assessee had suo motu disallowed Rs.50,000/- each in both the assessment years. Faced with this situation, we quote Joint Investment Vs. ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) that such a disallowance ought not to exceed

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

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

37,895/-, assessment year wise, in relation to the corresponding exempt income(s) of Rs.42,964/- and Rs.42,911/-; respectively. Suffice to say, the assessee had suo motu disallowed Rs.50,000/- each in both the assessment years. Faced with this situation, we quote Joint Investment Vs. ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) that such a disallowance ought not to exceed

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

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

37,895/-, assessment year wise, in relation to the corresponding exempt income(s) of Rs.42,964/- and Rs.42,911/-; respectively. Suffice to say, the assessee had suo motu disallowed Rs.50,000/- each in both the assessment years. Faced with this situation, we quote Joint Investment Vs. ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) that such a disallowance ought not to exceed

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

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

37,895/-, assessment year wise, in relation to the corresponding exempt income(s) of Rs.42,964/- and Rs.42,911/-; respectively. Suffice to say, the assessee had suo motu disallowed Rs.50,000/- each in both the assessment years. Faced with this situation, we quote Joint Investment Vs. ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 694 (Delhi) that such a disallowance ought not to exceed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE vs. M/S SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (TRUST), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

37 taxmann.com 389. (iv) Manockjee Cowasjee Petit Charities, 21 taxmann.com 456. Thus, it is submitted that there is no violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act on account of rent free accommodation provided to Shri Maruti N. Navale alleged by the Assessing Officer. 27 M/s. Sinhagad Technical Education Society As regards to the violation of provisions of section

KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DCIT, RANGE 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2611 & 2612/Pun/2012 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

4) Debatability of the issues; (5) Legal precedents on the similar payments made to similar parties abroad; and (6)Deemed Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act etc., We have also analysed facts of the issue on one side and the provisions of section 37(1) and the Explanation (1) wherever applicable and find the Explanation (1) does

KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2611 & 2612/Pun/2012 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2002-03 & 2003-04 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

4) Debatability of the issues; (5) Legal precedents on the similar payments made to similar parties abroad; and (6)Deemed Explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act etc., We have also analysed facts of the issue on one side and the provisions of section 37(1) and the Explanation (1) wherever applicable and find the Explanation (1) does

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

disallowances, the assessee had filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) contenting inter alia that the Assessing Officer ought not to have treated the unsecured loans of Rs.13,27,54,925/- as bogus loans, are merely accommodation entries since the interest was paid on such loans after deducting the TDS and the loans were accepted through the mode

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

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 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 granted deduction under section

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

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 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 granted deduction under section

SAKAL PAPER LTD.,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIR.-6,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2008 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-6, Pune …. Vs. Sakal Papers Ltd., 595, Budhawar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaccs7605Q

4. In disallowing the claim of Rs.64,88,107/- under section 80IA. This action being not in accordance with the law it is prayed that the same may be allowed. 6. The issue in ground of appeal No.1 is against disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses of Jalgaon office. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee

ACIT, CIR.-6., PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPER LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2008 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle-6, Pune …. Vs. Sakal Papers Ltd., 595, Budhawar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaccs7605Q

4. In disallowing the claim of Rs.64,88,107/- under section 80IA. This action being not in accordance with the law it is prayed that the same may be allowed. 6. The issue in ground of appeal No.1 is against disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses of Jalgaon office. 7. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee

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)

4,297,560 on account of disallowance under section 36(1)(va) and section 37 of the Act (i.e. disallowed