FAURECIA INTERIOR SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

disallowance made under section 14 A of the Act.” 5. We shall now take up the discussion on the facts of the assessee. Briefly stated relevant facts include that assessee is a company and is engaged in the business of CAD/CAE services for automotive services. Assessee is a Joint Venture incorporated in the year, 2004. Tata Auto Comp Systems

PRABHAT GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATNSANSTHA MARYADIT TADWADI,RAIGAD vs. ITO, WARD 3, PANVEL

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

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

disallowing the deduction of Rs.7,79,718/- claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and determining tax liability of Rs.3,32,430. The demand arose on account of deduction being wrongly claimed u/s 80-LA instead of section

SAI SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY 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. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1074 & 1075/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sai Service Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-10, Mumbai Pune Road, Vs Pune Phugewadi, Pune 411 012 Maharashtra Pan : Aabcs4998M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare– Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 04.09.2023 & 18.09.2023 Respectively For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since Some Grounds Of Appeal Are Common In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Are Discussing A.Y.2017-18 Hereonwards.

79,33,187 (-) 44,19,568/-) is confirmed as discussed above. 9.3. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 is partly allowed. Ground No.3: 10. It is regarding disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D. During the year the Assessee had received Dividend of Rs.2,86,27,085/-. The Assessee claimed the said income as exempt u/s.10 of the Act. In the computation

SAI SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY 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. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1074 & 1075/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sai Service Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-10, Mumbai Pune Road, Vs Pune Phugewadi, Pune 411 012 Maharashtra Pan : Aabcs4998M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare– Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 04.09.2023 & 18.09.2023 Respectively For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since Some Grounds Of Appeal Are Common In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Are Discussing A.Y.2017-18 Hereonwards.

79,33,187 (-) 44,19,568/-) is confirmed as discussed above. 9.3. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 is partly allowed. Ground No.3: 10. It is regarding disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D. During the year the Assessee had received Dividend of Rs.2,86,27,085/-. The Assessee claimed the said income as exempt u/s.10 of the Act. In the computation

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.326/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

79,22,877/- and interest paid on finance charges was ₹ 58,13,923/-, totaling ₹ 1,37,36,800/-. The Assessing Officer denied the claim of assessee of setting off of interest received of ₹ 40,56,925/- and re-computed 3 M/s. Shewani Properties the disallowance under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. MORYA ASSOCIATES, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKAR SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

79,657/- and interest earned on capital of Rs.32,05,320/- and claimed the same as business expenditure. The assessee was show caused as to why interest paid to firms against share of profit, which was exempt, be not disallowed in view of the provisions of section

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2054/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tata Technologies Limited, The Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.25, Phase I, Rajiv Vs Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjawadi, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaactg 3092 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafana & Smt.Chandni Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Shivraj B. Moray - Dr Date Of Hearing 01/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-7, Pune Dated 30.10.2019 For The A.Y. 2015-16 U/S 143(3)Rws 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act. The Appellant Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao, Following The Directions Of The Ld. Drp, Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Tpo In Rejecting The Alp Computation Undertaken By The Appellant For Benchmarking The International Transaction Pertaining To Payment Of Commission, Thereby Making A Tp Adjustment Of Rs.5,79,53,349 In The Software Distribution Segment.

disallowances made by the Ld. AO ought to be granted to the Appellant. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. DRP erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings ought to be dropped 7. On the facts

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

disallowance under section 14A. In this case, the Bombay High Court even while remanding the case back to Tribunal for adjudicating afresh observed (relying on its own previous judgment in same assessee's case for a different Assessment Year) that, if assessee possesses sufficient interest free funds as against investment in tax-free securities then, there is a presumption that

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR BUILDER MUMBAI REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

disallowance under section 14A. In this case, the Bombay High Court even while remanding the case back to Tribunal for adjudicating afresh observed (relying on its own previous judgment in same assessee's case for a different Assessment Year) that, if assessee possesses sufficient interest free funds as against investment in tax-free securities then, there is a presumption that

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

disallowance under section 14A. In this case, the Bombay High Court even while remanding the case back to Tribunal for adjudicating afresh observed (relying on its own previous judgment in same assessee's case for a different Assessment Year) that, if assessee possesses sufficient interest free funds as against investment in tax-free securities then, there is a presumption that