KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing expenses of Rs. 15,00,000/- under section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act) towards

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing expenses of Rs. 15,00,000/- under section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act) towards

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing expenses of Rs. 15,00,000/- under section 57(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act) towards

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. NAGPAL LANDMARKS,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Anil Chaturvedi Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

disallowed out of its claim for interest expenses a sum of Rs.26,94,845 on account of diversion of borrowed funds to its related parties. 1.4 The assessee in assessment proceedings explained that it had incurred net interest expense of Rs.40,30,882 (i.e. interest expenses Rs.1,17,43,813 less interest income of Rs.77,12,931) for its business

VIDYARTHI VIKAS PRATISHTHAN JALGAON,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (NFAC), DELHI

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1194/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Assessment Unit, Income Jalgaon, V Tax Department(Nfac) Gat No.148, Yashwant Nagar, S Ramanand Nagar, Maharashtra – 425001. Pan: Aaatv6624R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishnan – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Passed On 20.09.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal Filed Before Him By The Assessee & In Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Jalgaon[A]

57 instead of section 11 of the I.T.Act, all the expenditure claimed are liable to be disallowed. However, for the sake

PATEL GOYAL ASSOCIATES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Patel Goyal Associates, 501, Fortune House, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune-411004. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aahfp0519N …. Vs. Ito, Judicial (Hq), …. ""यथ" / Respondent Pune. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Kailash Agarwal ""थ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-3, Pune Dated 24.11.2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.29,65,196/- U/S 57(Iii) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Interest U/S 57(Iii). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Interest Paid Ought To Have Been Allowed U/S 57(Iii). For That Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That When The Learned A.O. Has Recorded A Clear Cut Finding In The Assessment Order & Affirmed The Position Taken By The Appellant In Return Of Income That When Interest Is Not Claimed & Also Not Allowable U/S 36(1)(Iii), It Has To Be Allowed U/S 57(Iii). 3. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That When Borrowed Funds Were Not Required For Business Purposes Due To Availability Of Surplus Funds In Regular Business, Interest Is Paid Only To Earn Interest Income & Hence Interest Cannot Be Disallowed U/S 57(Iii).

section 57 of the Act. He further submitted that the sum of Rs.95,86,721/- was offered as ‘income from other sources’ and the expenditure of Rs.29,65,196/- was claimed as an expenditure u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Further, he relied on the argumentative grounds raised in the present appeal. Mentioning that the similar deductions were claimed

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

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

section 14A read with Rule 8D to Rs. 42,964, being the amount of exempt income earned by the Appellant during the subject year. 2. GROUND 2 - 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.7,57

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 14A read with Rule 8D to Rs. 42,964, being the amount of exempt income earned by the Appellant during the subject year. 2. GROUND 2 - 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.7,57

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

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

section 14A read with Rule 8D to Rs. 42,964, being the amount of exempt income earned by the Appellant during the subject year. 2. GROUND 2 - 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.7,57

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

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

section 14A read with Rule 8D to Rs. 42,964, being the amount of exempt income earned by the Appellant during the subject year. 2. GROUND 2 - 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.7,57

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE,PUNE, PUNE vs. SHREE WARANA VIBHAG SHIKSHAN MANDAL , WARNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144 cannot be arbitrary. It has to be reasonable and wellinformed. An adhoc disallowance of expenses is not justified even 5 ITA No.987/PUN/2024, AY 2017-18 under a best judgment assessment. Such a disallowance is a spiteful act and not a fair assessment of income. Therefore disallowance of Rs.8,74,57

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

UMESH CHANDRASHEKHAR KABBUR,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.668/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ITA No.668/PUN/2017, 2 A.Y. 2013-14 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of Rs.8,57

NALINI TUKARAM NIKAM,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2747/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed under section 57 of the Act. The case is pending before the CIT(Appeal). The AO report is attached

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 interest income on Non Performing Assets (NPAs) on accrual basis involving Rs.9,29,57,036/-. It emerges during the course of hearing that the same is also no more res integra in light of hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent common order involving assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 in assessee’s case(s) itself dated

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

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

disallowance of interest income on Non Performing Assets (NPAs) on accrual basis involving Rs.9,29,57,036/-. It emerges during the course of hearing that the same is also no more res integra in light of hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s recent common order involving assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 in assessee’s case(s) itself dated

M/S. SHEWANI PROPERTIES ,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 14A of the Act and disallowed an amount of Rs.57,35,291/-. The assessee claims that an amount of Rs.50,29,650/- has already been disallowed by him so the same should have been reduced by the Assessing Officer from the disallowed amount of Rs 57

BHARAT NAGORI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

disallowance of Rs.2,00,000/- was made under section 57(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer vide Para 5 at page