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

94,637/-. (j) Disallowance of Corporate Guarantee Commission of Rs.1,20,29,793/-. (k) Disallowance of deduction u/s 10AA of Rs.47,46,67,962/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order held that : (i) No disallowance u/s 14A can be made by the Assessing Officer without recording

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 359/Pun/2013 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2008-09

94,040 as against income of Rs. 65,78,09,980 (as per the revised computation of income filed by the Appellant with the learned AO during the course of assessment proceedings); 2 M/s. Honeywell Automation India Ltd., A. Denial of tax holiday claim under section 10A of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,22,56,867 with respect

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowed short term capital loss u/s. 94(7) of the Act, definitely, in our opinion, the AO should have allowed carry forward of differential amount under long term capital loss and for denying the same, in our opinion, is not justified. Therefore, we direct the AO to allow carry forward the difference of amount of Rs.6,17,08,575/- (Rs.10

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowed short term capital loss u/s. 94(7) of the Act, definitely, in our opinion, the AO should have allowed carry forward of differential amount under long term capital loss and for denying the same, in our opinion, is not justified. Therefore, we direct the AO to allow carry forward the difference of amount of Rs.6,17,08,575/- (Rs.10

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

section 94 (7) of the act holding it to be sham and fictitious transaction is devoid of any merit. Accordingly on the merits also, orders of the lower authorities are reversed and ground number 4 – 7 of the appeal are allowed.” 20. We find Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Agencies Rajasthan Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (supra

VIJAY ARVIND RAYKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2),, PUNE

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.3010/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vijay Arvind Raykar, The Income Tax Officer, Ward- S.No.33, Wadgaon(Bk), Vs 6(2), Pune. Singhagad Road, Haveli, Pune – 411041. Pan: Adqpr 1950 F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Abhay A.Avchat– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune Dated 29.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune, Has Erred In Disallowing An Amount To The Extent Of Rs. 94,526/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D & The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Pune Has Erred In Confirming The Same. 2. There Is Error In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.27,30,900/- Under Section 43Ca Of The Act & Appropriate Relief Should Be Granted To The Assessee In Respect Thereof. 3. The Assessee Requests For Grant Of Appropriate Relief From Additions Made Under Section 14A & 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Order Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune, Under Section 143(3) Dated September 29, 2017 Is Bad In Law & Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer (Appeals)-V, Pune Has Erred In Confirming The Same. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

94,526/- is disallowed and added to the total income to which AR agreed.” 2.2 The ld.CIT(A) has upheld the said addition. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of lower authorities

MR. VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

7. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the basis for making addition in the hands of assessee was on account of sale of Gutkha outside the books of account in cash. The allegation of the Department was that Shri Sohanraj

MR. VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

7. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the basis for making addition in the hands of assessee was on account of sale of Gutkha outside the books of account in cash. The allegation of the Department was that Shri Sohanraj

MR. VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

7. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the basis for making addition in the hands of assessee was on account of sale of Gutkha outside the books of account in cash. The allegation of the Department was that Shri Sohanraj

ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRI VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

7. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the basis for making addition in the hands of assessee was on account of sale of Gutkha outside the books of account in cash. The allegation of the Department was that Shri Sohanraj

ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRI VIMALKUMAR JEEVRAJ NAHAR,

In the result, appeals of assessee for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeals of Revenue for all three years are d...

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1347 To 1349/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vimalkumar Jeevraj Nahar, D.No.10-1-128/3/A/3, Nahar Niwas, Masab Tank, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Hyderabad – 500028 Pan: Abfpn1614D

7. Both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the basis for making addition in the hands of assessee was on account of sale of Gutkha outside the books of account in cash. The allegation of the Department was that Shri Sohanraj

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

disallowed the provision on account of overdue interest of\nRs 34,94,01,100/- as there is no provision of Income Tax Act under which any\nprovision is allowed as expensed. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CIT vs.\nDeogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd in 79 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay) [2017] dated\n22-01-2015 has held as under

NITIN DWARKADAS NYATI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 14A of the Act. It is also his submission that the disallowance, if any, u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should be applicable only to such expenditure which may have any nexus with earning exempt income and not extend the disallowance to expenses having direct relation to earning taxable income. 11. We find some force in the above arguments

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

7) of\nSection 43(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

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

94 to 135 of the paper book, submitted that the assessee before the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) had submitted that the Assessing Officer has wrongly calculated the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules and the correct disallowance comes to Rs.7,95,909/-. However, the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) has not considered the calculation

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

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)

7 intimation u/s 143(1) of the IT Act of Rs.42,97,560/-. However, at the time of hearing Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted before us that out of above addition an amount of Rs.32,94,172/- pertains to disallowance with regard to delayed PF payment and assessee is not pressing this ground to the extent of Rs.32,94

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"

7. Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal with the aforesaid grounds. 8. Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the orders of AO and relied on section 44 of the Act. Ld. DR prayed for reversing the order of CIT(A) on this issue. However, he fairly admitted that this issue