CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

disallow ₹ 49,16,894/- under section 14A of the Act. 45. The issue in grounds of appeal No.9.1 and 9.2 against claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act is similar to grounds of appeal No.8.1 and 8.2 raised in assessment year 2010-11. Following the same parity of reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

disallow ₹ 49,16,894/- under section 14A of the Act. 45. The issue in grounds of appeal No.9.1 and 9.2 against claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act is similar to grounds of appeal No.8.1 and 8.2 raised in assessment year 2010-11. Following the same parity of reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow

CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.556/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.574/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Cummins India Limited, Dhanaukar Colony, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune Pan: Aaacc7258B आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.834/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cummins India Limited, Cummins India Office Campus, Tower A, 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Balewadi, Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.821/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

disallow ₹ 49,16,894/- under section 14A of the Act. 45. The issue in grounds of appeal No.9.1 and 9.2 against claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act is similar to grounds of appeal No.8.1 and 8.2 raised in assessment year 2010-11. Following the same parity of reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow

TATA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.168 & 1708/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

46 at pages 14 and 15 of the said order and following the same parity of reasoning, 168/PUN/2018 7 M/s. Tata Technologies Ltd. we hold that the said expenditure is not allowable in the hands of assessee. Hence, ground of appeal No.6 raised by assessee is dismissed. 9. Similarly, the next issue raised vide ground of appeal No.7 of disallowance

TATA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.168 & 1708/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

46 at pages 14 and 15 of the said order and following the same parity of reasoning, 168/PUN/2018 7 M/s. Tata Technologies Ltd. we hold that the said expenditure is not allowable in the hands of assessee. Hence, ground of appeal No.6 raised by assessee is dismissed. 9. Similarly, the next issue raised vide ground of appeal No.7 of disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

46. However, in order\nto claim such exemption, it must be clearly established that the land\nwas compulsorily acquired under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, by an\nauthority other than the specified persons and for the public\npurposes defined under the Act. In view of the above legal position,\nthe decision of the learned CIT(A) in allowing the exemption under

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

M/S. MUNOTH TRANSPORT CO.,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.990/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Munoth Transport Co., Darshan Apartment, V.K. High School Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Panvel, Raigad – 410206 …. Pan: Aacfm1055D Vs.

46,000/- was disallowed. Similarly, plot rent expenses were restricted to 50% i.e. ₹ 3,60,000/-, which was allowed in the hands of assessee and balance claim of ₹ 3,60,000/- was disallowed. 6. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made under section

SHANKAR KASHINATH KADAM,,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Shankar Kashinath Kadam, Hingagaon Road, Kavthemahankal, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Sangli - 416405 …. Pan: Aumpk8234G Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 2(3), Sangli

disallowance of Rs.2,29,56,838/- under S. 40(a)(ia) being transport charges paid u/s 194C(7) of the Act on mere change of opinion. The addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is invalid and without jurisdiction. It be quashed.” 3. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had filed return

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

section 234C ought to be levied on the returned income and not on assessed income. 4. The grounds of appeal No.1 to 3 challenges the decision of ld. CIT(A) disallowing weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) amounting to Rs.62,60,65,990/-. The factual background of the disallowance is as under: During the previous year relevant to the assessment under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOMNATH VAIJANATH SAKRE,, AURANGABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2896/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

disallowance u/s.14A should have been Rs.90,46,507/- and not Rs.76,21,500/-. However, in view of finding that section

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPNY LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2896/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

disallowance u/s.14A should have been Rs.90,46,507/- and not Rs.76,21,500/-. However, in view of finding that section

CUMMINS INDIA LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 15 Cummins India Limited. 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

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting of Rs.47,46,67,962/- on account of Deduction u/s 10AA on sale to UNICEF, since the said section

KUMAR PROPERTIES AND REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

46,67,130/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.10.2017 was issued and served on the assessee. Subsequently the Assessing Officer issued 2 notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire in response to which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ASSOCIATED DAIRY FAB PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Associated Dairy Fab Pvt. Ltd., B-5/1, Midc Area, Ajantha Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalgaon – 425003 …. Pan: Aaeca3963F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Jalgaon

section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee further claimed that deduction on account of transport and freight charges was claimed only in respect of ₹ 2,91,362/-, of which admittedly ₹ 46,000/- was inadmissible. The Assessing Officer however, rejecting the plea of assessee disallowed

ASSOCIATED DAIRY FAB PVT. LTD.,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Associated Dairy Fab Pvt. Ltd., B-5/1, Midc Area, Ajantha Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalgaon – 425003 …. Pan: Aaeca3963F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Jalgaon

section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee further claimed that deduction on account of transport and freight charges was claimed only in respect of ₹ 2,91,362/-, of which admittedly ₹ 46,000/- was inadmissible. The Assessing Officer however, rejecting the plea of assessee disallowed

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