DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

96 to 1998-99. The provisions of section 10A(6) r.w.s. 80- I(9) of the Act, which were before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court are quite similar to the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act before us. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, upheld the stand that the requirements of the provisions

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance of claim under section 10AA of the Act amounting to Rs. 17,09,96,537, without assigning any reason

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance of claim under section 10AA of the Act amounting to Rs. 17,09,96,537, without assigning any reason

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Revenue is partly allowed, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by assessee is dismissed as withdrawn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

disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act amounting to Rs 25,90,96,222, being difference

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”].

96,569/- Total Rs.21,90,490/- The AO also observed that the appellant has itself disallowed an amount of Rs.11,06,875/- therefore, the AO made further disallowance of Rs 10,83,615/-. 5.5 The submission of the appellant is that an appropriate amount has already been disallowed by the appellant itself so further disallowance should not be made

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

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.500/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 7. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee explained that the assessee was an Indian company and had one associated enterprise in Singapore, to which payment of ₹ 4.35 crores was made. The holding company of assessee was Vishay Intertechnology Inc, USA, which entered into various agreements for providing leaseline and also for provision

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

disallowance under section 43B of the Act for non-payment of alleged service tax liability, overlooking that service tax does not fall under the scope of section 43B of the Act. 6. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration was engaged in supply of labour and job work. The assessee for the year

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

disallowance under section 43B of the Act for non-payment of alleged service tax liability, overlooking that service tax does not fall under the scope of section 43B of the Act. 6. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration was engaged in supply of labour and job work. The assessee for the year

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

disallowance under section 43B of the Act for non-payment of alleged service tax liability, overlooking that service tax does not fall under the scope of section 43B of the Act. 6. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration was engaged in supply of labour and job work. The assessee for the year

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

disallowance under section 43B of the Act for non-payment of alleged service tax liability, overlooking that service tax does not fall under the scope of section 43B of the Act. 6. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration was engaged in supply of labour and job work. The assessee for the year

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

disallowance under section 43B of the Act for non-payment of alleged service tax liability, overlooking that service tax does not fall under the scope of section 43B of the Act. 6. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee for the year under consideration was engaged in supply of labour and job work. The assessee for the year

BHARAT FORGE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.13/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 35(2AB) of the Act at ₹ 18,42,000/-. 12. The CIT(A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer. 6 13. The assessee is in appeal against the said disallowance. 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the order of Pune Bench of Tribunal

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

96,515 as taxable. 1.2 Erred in not following the binding decision of the Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in appellant's own case for AY 2002-03 to AY 2006-07. Ground No 2: Disallowance of Contribution to Environmental Relief Fund 2.1 Erred in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing the provision of contribution towards Environmental Relief Fund

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

96,515 as taxable. 1.2 Erred in not following the binding decision of the Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in appellant's own case for AY 2002-03 to AY 2006-07. Ground No 2: Disallowance of Contribution to Environmental Relief Fund 2.1 Erred in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing the provision of contribution towards Environmental Relief Fund

MINILEC INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.690/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Minilec India Pvt. Ltd., 1073/1-2-3, At & Post Pirangut, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 412111 …. Pan:Aabcm2682E Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11(2), Pune

disallowance of ₹ 96,311/- under section 43B of the Act on account of delayed payment of leave encashment. 33. Clause

CARRORO INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

96 (Mad.) wherein it was held that the services rendered by the non-resident agent can at best be called as a service for completion of the export commitment and would not fall within the definition of fees for technical services and therefore, section 9 of the Act is not applicable to the instant case and consequently, section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CARRARO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

96 (Mad.) wherein it was held that the services rendered by the non-resident agent can at best be called as a service for completion of the export commitment and would not fall within the definition of fees for technical services and therefore, section 9 of the Act is not applicable to the instant case and consequently, section