Search: disallowance

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

ITA 767/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala and Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

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

ITA 819/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala and Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

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 FINANACE LTD,, PUNE

ITA 818/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala and Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

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

ITA 766/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala and Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

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

ITA 1394/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Assessee by Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

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

ITA 1722/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Assessee by Ms. Vasanti B. Patel

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE SOLAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD.,LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1419/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1419/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 43D

disallowed the said sum of Rs.10,08,15,871/-. At the end of assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act the AO assessed the income at Rs.58,64,46,730/-. 4. Aggrieved with the order of AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee relying on the decision of the Tribunal

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

ITA 801/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

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

ITA 378/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale

Section 43D

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. THE DEOLA MERCHANT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2992/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.2992/Pun/2016 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu DasFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Avchat

Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43D

section 43D was not examined. 1.3 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing the interest expenditure of Rs.1,16,55,721/- without appreciating the decision of ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Cosmos Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-7, ITA No.460 & 461/PN/2012 dt. 23.01.2014, wherein

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

ITA 1645/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Ms. Divya Bajpai, CIT

Section 14ASection 28Section 43BSection 44

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,,

ITA 1655/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Ms. Divya Bajpai, CIT

Section 14ASection 28Section 43BSection 44

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

ITA 800/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: \nDepartment by

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

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

ITA 802/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nDepartment by

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

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

ITA 2137/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay &

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 43C

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

ITA 2119/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay &

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 43C

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 vs. SHARAD SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1046/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha

43D of the Income-tax Act will not be applicable to them. Learned counsel further submits that, in view of the provisions of section 145 of the Income- tax Act, the assessee-co-operative banks have to follow either the mercantile system of accounting or cash system. They cannot have mixed system of account. The learned counsel also submits that

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

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 413/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Shri B. Koteswara Rao

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 43D

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

ITA 544/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune23 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhil MuthaFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandraker

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43D

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHARAD NAGARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1240/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Achal SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Shingte

Section 145Section 260ASection 43D

section 43D were applicable in the case of assessee co-operative bank unless accrued interest was routed through P&L Account. However, the above decision has not been accepted by the CIT, Aurangabad and appeal u/s. 260A has been filed with the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. Further, appeals u/s. 260A on the similar issue have