E-ALLY SECURITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,RAIGAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE, PANVEL, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

section 14A read with Rule 8D and relying on certain decisions and distinguishing the decisions cited by the assessee, he made the disallowance of Rs.40,53,508/-. 3 6. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC though noted that the assessee has received the exempt income of only Rs.2,000/-, however, dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee by directing

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)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B was passed by the AO on 26 4 September 2022. In the assessment order, the AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.23,96,58,331/- and raised a tax demand of Rs.44,65,790/- on the assessee after disallowance

PRECISION CAMSHAFTS LTD.,SOLAPUR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (NFAC), SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1962/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Precision Camshafts Ltd., V Assessment Unit, Income Tax E-102/103, Akkalkot Road, S Department (National Midc, Solapur – 413006. Faceless Assessment Center), Maharashtra. Jurisdiction Details : Pne- C(1), Range 63, Circle-1, Solapur. Pan: Aabcp1086B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 25.07.2024, Emanating From Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act For A.Y.2020-21

section 14A of the IT Act cannot be more than the exempt income earned by the Assessee during the assessment year in question. In this case, there is no dispute that the dividend i.e. the exempt income earned by the Assessees during the relevant Assessment Year, was only Rs. 45,371/-. Accordingly, the disallowance in this case could not have

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 disallowance to a lump sum figure of Rs.50,000/- each in both these assessment years. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. The assessee’s identical first and foremost grounds in both these appeals is partly accepted in very terms. 4. Next comes the assessee’s identical second substantive grievance that both

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 disallowance to a lump sum figure of Rs.50,000/- each in both these assessment years. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. The assessee’s identical first and foremost grounds in both these appeals is partly accepted in very terms. 4. Next comes the assessee’s identical second substantive grievance that both

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 disallowance to a lump sum figure of Rs.50,000/- each in both these assessment years. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. The assessee’s identical first and foremost grounds in both these appeals is partly accepted in very terms. 4. Next comes the assessee’s identical second substantive grievance that both

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 disallowance to a lump sum figure of Rs.50,000/- each in both these assessment years. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. The assessee’s identical first and foremost grounds in both these appeals is partly accepted in very terms. 4. Next comes the assessee’s identical second substantive grievance that both

PUSHPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10 , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.300/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14 Pushpak Steel Industries The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, V Cricle-10, Pune. Gat No.119, Alandi Markal S Road, Alandi Markal Road,Vill-Dhanore, Pune – 412105. Pan: Aabcp 0081 C Assessee / Appellant Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2023 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)-11, Pune Dated 27.01.2023 For A.Y.2013-14 Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 13.12.2016. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per The Provisions & The Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Pushpak Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., [A]

65,000/-. Thus, the first substantial question of law is required to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessees. ” Unquote. 6 Pushpak Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., [A] 8. We find that AO has rightly invoked Rule 8D(2)(iii). Respectfully following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, AO is directed to restrict the disallowance under section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. MAHALAXMI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

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

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(i) and 8D(ii), he made disallowance of Rs.6,65,484/-. 7. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted

M/S. SHIVAMM INDUSTRIES,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.393/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Shivamm Industries, The Dy.Commissioner Of Plot 76, Arihant Heights, Sector Vs Income Tax, Circle-8, No.25, Pradhikaran Nigdi, Pune. Pune – 411044. Pan: Aaefs 0458 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 15/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee I.E. Shivamm Industries For A.Y. 2013-14 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Of Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 21.03.2023 Emanating From Assessing Officer’S Order Under Section 154 Of The Act Dated 22.03.2021. The Ground Of Appeal Are As Under : “1. The Order Dated 21/03/2023 Bearing No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051048828[L] Passed Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 By The Hon’Ble Cit[Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Is Excessive, M/S.Shivamm Industries [A]

section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 28.12.2015 determining the total income at Rs.48,65,880/-. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer(AO) has made a ad-hoc disallowance

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

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

section 14A read with rule 8D disallowance to a lump sum figure of Rs.50,000/- for the impugned assessment year. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. The assessee’s identical first and foremost grounds are partly accepted in very terms. 4. The assessee’s second substantive grievance is that both the lower authorities have erred

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 14A read with rule 8D disallowance to a lump sum figure of Rs.50,000/- for the impugned assessment year. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. The assessee’s identical first and foremost grounds are partly accepted in very terms. 4. The assessee’s second substantive grievance is that both the lower authorities have erred

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of the expenditure even where in a particular year the assessee has not earned any exempt income. Thus all the investments from which exempt income is earned or will be earned need to considered for the calculation under Rule 8D. As seen from the show cause given to the assessee which

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

65,984/- on account of liquidated\ndamages in assessments years 2017-18 and 2015-16 respectively. These damages\nwere disallowed under section

CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed the quantum of exempt income; Denial of claim of weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act on expenditure incurred in Research & Development ('R&D') facility to the extent of Rs. 10,76,825.00 7. erred in denying the claim of weighted deduction of Rs.1 0,76,825.00 under section

ARMED FORCES EX-OFFICERS MULTISERVICES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS NFAC, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowing the claim of deduction made under section 80P(2)(d) of INR 1,65,02,105. The Learned Assessing

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made for the reason that the reimbursement on account of A&M expenses, management cost and selling discount given to HUL does not result any income in the hands of the payee i.e. HUL and, therefore, the question of deduction of tax at source does not arise. It was further

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance of Rs.85,00,65,992/- to the total income of the assessee by observing as under: “7.1 As discussed earlier, as per rule 2, the taxable profits and gains are required to be calculated considering the surplus/ deficit arrived at after making the adjustments prescribed in the said rule to the surplus/deficit disclosed by the actuarial valuation made

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

disallowance of Rs.85,00,65,992/- to the total income of the assessee by observing as under: “7.1 As discussed earlier, as per rule 2, the taxable profits and gains are required to be calculated considering the surplus/ deficit arrived at after making the adjustments prescribed in the said rule to the surplus/deficit disclosed by the actuarial valuation made