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

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

Section 43D of the Act which was inserted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f 1.4.2018. 7. In case of CIT Vs. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd & Ors.3, this Court had expressed a similar view. We may further clarify that in the said case, the Court was concerned with a similar claim raised by the co-operative bank and the Court

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

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

Section 43D of the Act which was inserted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f 1.4.2018. 7. In case of CIT Vs. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd & Ors.3, this Court had expressed a similar view. We may further clarify that in the said case, the Court was concerned with a similar claim raised by the co-operative bank and the Court

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

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

Section 43D of the Act which was inserted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f 1.4.2018. 7. In case of CIT Vs. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd & Ors.3, this Court had expressed a similar view. We may further clarify that in the said case, the Court was concerned with a similar claim raised by the co-operative bank and the Court

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

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

Section 43D of the Act which was inserted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f 1.4.2018. 7. In case of CIT Vs. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd & Ors.3, this Court had expressed a similar view. We may further clarify that in the said case, the Court was concerned with a similar claim raised by the co-operative bank and the Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

43D of\nthe Act.\n10.1 The Ld. AO also disallowed the provisions made towards robbery\namounting to Rs.5,10,000/- and provision made towards fraud amounting to\nRs.1,59,83,000/- u/s 37 of the Act observing that these are not legitimate\nbusiness expenses. Before the Ld. AO, the Ld. AR for the assessee made the\nfollowing submission in respect

THE SINDHUDURG DIST CENTRAL CO.OP BANK LTD,,SINDHUDURG vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

disallowance. The assessee challenged the same before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, since the issue being covered, we are disposing of this appeal after hearing ld. DR. 4. After perusing the material on record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

43D of the Act with regard to income recognition and also section 36(1)(2ia) of the Act with regard to provision for doubtful debts. ii. Investments in securities of shares being non-obligatory, cannot be considered as a part of legitimate insurance business. iii. There is no specific provision excluding the profits on sale/redemption of investments under Rule

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

43D of the Act with regard to income recognition and also section 36(1)(2ia) of the Act with regard to provision for doubtful debts. ii. Investments in securities of shares being non-obligatory, cannot be considered as a part of legitimate insurance business. iii. There is no specific provision excluding the profits on sale/redemption of investments under Rule

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

43D of\nthe Act.\n10.1 The Ld. AO also disallowed the provisions made towards robbery\namounting to Rs.5,10,000/- and provision made towards fraud amounting to\nRs.1,59,83,000/- u/s 37 of the Act observing that these are not legitimate\nbusiness expenses. Before the Ld. AO, the Ld. AR for the assessee made the\nfollowing submission in respect

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

43D of\nthe Act.\n10.1 The Ld. AO also disallowed the provisions made towards robbery\namounting to Rs.5,10,000/- and provision made towards fraud amounting to\nRs.1,59,83,000/- u/s 37 of the Act observing that these are not legitimate\nbusiness expenses. Before the Ld. AO, the Ld. AR for the assessee made the\nfollowing submission in respect

BHUJBAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE

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

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

43D. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. BHUJBAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

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

43D. Section 40 provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

Section 43D of the Act which was inserted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f 1.4.2018. 7. In case of CIT Vs. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd & Ors., this Court had expressed a similar view. We may further clarify that in the said case, the Court was concerned with a similar claim raised by the co-operative bank and the Court

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 43D of the Act which was inserted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f 1.4.2018. 7. In case of CIT Vs. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd & Ors., this Court had expressed a similar view. We may further clarify that in the said case, the Court was concerned with a similar claim raised by the co-operative bank and the Court

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

disallowing the claim is that as per 24 IT(SS)A Nos.23 to 25/PUN/2024 assessing officer, all the above-mentioned units should be aggregated and considered as a single eligible business. The issue as to whether each windmill is required to be treated as 'separate undertaking' or all the windmills should be aggregated, has been examined

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowing the claim is that as per assessing officer, all the above- mentioned units should be aggregated and considered as a 'single eligible business'. The issue as to whether each windmill is required to be treated as 'separate undertaking' or all the windmills should be aggregated has been examined by the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune on various occasions. Some

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowing the claim is that as per assessing officer, all the above- mentioned units should be aggregated and considered as a 'single eligible business'. The issue as to whether each windmill is required to be treated as 'separate undertaking' or all the windmills should be aggregated has been examined by the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune on various occasions. Some

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowing the claim is that as per assessing officer, all the above- mentioned units should be aggregated and considered as a 'single eligible business'. The issue as to whether each windmill is required to be treated as 'separate undertaking' or all the windmills should be aggregated has been examined by the Hon'ble ITAT, Pune on various occasions. Some