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

THE MUMBAI OBSTETRIC GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,LOW PAREL (W) vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

disallowance of\nexpenditure in violation of the MCI Regulations which come in the ambit\nof Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and CBDT Circular No\n05/2012. This clearly shows that the averments of the Assessing Officer\nin his reference are proved.\n12. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble\nApex

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIJAY ARVIND RAYKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2),, PUNE

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.3010/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vijay Arvind Raykar, The Income Tax Officer, Ward- S.No.33, Wadgaon(Bk), Vs 6(2), Pune. Singhagad Road, Haveli, Pune – 411041. Pan: Adqpr 1950 F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Abhay A.Avchat– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune Dated 29.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune, Has Erred In Disallowing An Amount To The Extent Of Rs. 94,526/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D & The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Pune Has Erred In Confirming The Same. 2. There Is Error In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.27,30,900/- Under Section 43Ca Of The Act & Appropriate Relief Should Be Granted To The Assessee In Respect Thereof. 3. The Assessee Requests For Grant Of Appropriate Relief From Additions Made Under Section 14A & 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Order Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune, Under Section 143(3) Dated September 29, 2017 Is Bad In Law & Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer (Appeals)-V, Pune Has Erred In Confirming The Same. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

disallowance made under section 14A is hereby directed to be deleted, accordingly, the Ground No.1 raised by the assessee are allowed. 4. Ground No.2 relates to addition under section 43CA of the Act. The assessee is a builder. He is in the business of construction and sale of residential/commercial properties. The AO observed that certain residential units have been sold

PARAG MILK FOODS LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Parag Milk Foods Ltd., The Assistant Awasari Phata,Village Manchar, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tal - Ambegaon, Tax, Circle-4, Pune. Dist-Pune – 411503. Pan: Aabcp 0425 G Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)[Ld.Cit(A)], Pune-11 Dated 04.02.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 26.12.2018 For A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Making An Addition Of Rs.1,15,71,588/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction U/Sec.80Ia Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Has Not Complied With The Conditions Which Are Necessary To Claim Deduction U/Sec.80Ia Of The Act & Failed To Furnish Any Concrete Evidence To Prove That The Parag Milk Foods Ltd., [A]

disallowance made by the AO of premium paid to LIC, ld.AR submitted that assessee has already applied to ld.CIT for approval of Gratuity Fund. Ld.AR took us through the copy of master policy. Ld.AR alternatively pleaded that the said expenditure is allowable under section 37 as it was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of assessee

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

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 u/s 10AA of Rs.47,46,67,962/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the above

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

4. Since the capital gain from sale of shares is taxable in India, capital loss from the same allowed to be set off against any other capital gain. 5. Sub section (3) of section 70 is reproduced below: Where the result of the computation made for any assessment year under sections 48 to 55 in respect of any capital asset

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

4. Since the capital gain from sale of shares is taxable in India, capital loss from the same allowed to be set off against any other capital gain. 5. Sub section (3) of section 70 is reproduced below: Where the result of the computation made for any assessment year under sections 48 to 55 in respect of any capital asset