AIS SHIVAJI MEMORIAL SOCIETYS EMPLOYEES COOP CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139” 7. He accordingly submitted that when the return was processed

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

1. Kanhya Lai Punj Charitable Trust Vs. DIT (Exemption), Delhi, 297 ITR 66 (Del) a) Once the exception u/s. 11 &12 is withdrawn for violation of section 13(l)(c)/ 13(3) /13(2), all the receipts of the trust either by voluntary contribution or income derived from its property would be an income of the trust in the normal

INDUS BIOTECH LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance of\nexpenditure incurred in relation to the IPO which was subsequently\naborted amounting to INR 1,17,25,562/- under section 37 of the Act.\n3. 2. The Appellant prays that the claim of the Appellant be allowed.\nGround No. 4\n4.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in\ndirecting

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

1) and Explanation-2 of Section 43(6) of the IT Act 1961\nestablishes that the depreciation on goodwill as a result of amalgamation is\nnot allowable.\nResultantly, the claims made by the appellant in support of this ground do\nnot have any merit. Therefore, the addition made by assessing officer on\naccount of disallowance of claim of depreciation

SHARP DESIGNERS AND ENGINEERS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3083/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sharp Designers & Engineers India P.Ltd., Office No.14, A Wing, 1St Floor, Mahalaxmi Heights, S.No. 32/7, 32/8, 33/4, Pune Mumbai Road, Near „Key Hotel‟ , Pimpri, Pune- 411 018. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaack7637E बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Acit, Circle 9, Akurdi, Pune Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

65 . Inserted by the Finance Act, 2006, w.e.f. l-4-2006 66. Inserted by the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1-4-2008" 11. Simultaneously, 4 th proviso to Sec. 139(1) of the Income-tax Act was inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2006 which reads as under: 9 [Provided also that every person, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

1) or u/s.139(5). Since the assessee claimed deduction by filing the revised return u/s.139(5) and also uploaded the requisite audit report in Form No. 56F along with that, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order in accepting the assessee’s claim in this regard. This ground is, therefore, not allowed. 57. Ground No.5 of the Revenue

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

1) or u/s.139(5). Since the assessee claimed deduction by filing the revised return u/s.139(5) and also uploaded the requisite audit report in Form No. 56F along with that, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order in accepting the assessee’s claim in this regard. This ground is, therefore, not allowed. 57. Ground No.5 of the Revenue

DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., PUNE

1,20,58,298 | 13,35,65,182 |\n| Expenses Debited to P&L A/c. (Sub-total C) | 3,41,34,804 | 74,95,427 | 2,66,39,378 | 3,41,34,804 |\n| Grand Total | 15,07,38,534 | 9,61,80,237 | 5,45,58,297 | 26,73,42,263 |\n\n5. It can be seen from

DCIT CIRCLE 8 , PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

1,20,58,298 13,35,65,182 Expenses Debited to 3,41,34,804 74,95,427 2,66,39,378 3,41,34,804 P&L A/c. (Sub-total C) Grand Total 15,07,38,534 9,61,80,237 5,45,58,297 26,73,42,263 5. It can be seen from the above Table that

MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

1,20,58,298 13,35,65,182 Expenses Debited to 3,41,34,804 74,95,427 2,66,39,378 3,41,34,804 P&L A/c. (Sub-total C) Grand Total 15,07,38,534 9,61,80,237 5,45,58,297 26,73,42,263 5. It can be seen from the above Table that

DCIT,CIRCLE-8 , PUNE vs. MAHALE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

1,20,58,298 13,35,65,182 Expenses Debited to 3,41,34,804 74,95,427 2,66,39,378 3,41,34,804 P&L A/c. (Sub-total C) Grand Total 15,07,38,534 9,61,80,237 5,45,58,297 26,73,42,263 5. It can be seen from the above Table that

SHRI SANT SENA MAHARAJ NABHIK SAMAJACHI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA, MARYADIT,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WRD-1(4), JALGAON, JALGAON

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 841/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Sant Sena Maharaj Nabhik Samajachi Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Behind Shani Mandir, Radhabai Chal, Chalisgaon – 424 101 Pan: Aabas8462N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer- 1(4), Jalgaon . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Abhay Avachat [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Shri R Y Balawade [‚Ld. Dr] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Instituted U/S 253(1) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] Challenges Din & Order No. Itba/Nfsc/S/250/2023- 24/1052715471(1) Dt. 10/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter].

disallow the claim of deduction made in return filed ITAT-Pune Page 8 of 10 Shri Sant Sena Maharaj Nabhik Samajachi Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit ITA No. 841/PUN/2023 AY 2019-20 beyond the due date specified u/s 139(1) of the Act in terms of section 143(1)(a)(v) is contra legem, since this enabling provision brought into effect

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

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 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