M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Jcit, Range-7, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.568/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aaact3904F आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Rhea Amar Revenue By : Shri A. K. Modi सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. The Appeals In Ita No.412/Pun/2014 & Ita No.568/Pun/2014 Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal In Ita No.287/Pun/2015 Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Said Cross Appeals Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10 For Adjudication.

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of the its income.” Ground no.1 is general and the same is dismissed. 4. Grounds no.2 to 9 relate to the denial of tax holiday u/s 10AA of the 5. Act on the ground that the margins

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Jcit, Range-7, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.568/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aaact3904F आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Rhea Amar Revenue By : Shri A. K. Modi सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. The Appeals In Ita No.412/Pun/2014 & Ita No.568/Pun/2014 Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal In Ita No.287/Pun/2015 Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Said Cross Appeals Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10 For Adjudication.

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of the its income.” Ground no.1 is general and the same is dismissed. 4. Grounds no.2 to 9 relate to the denial of tax holiday u/s 10AA of the 5. Act on the ground that the margins

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

10A of the Act to Unit II treating it as an expansion of Unit I. 4. Others. 4.1. The Learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act; 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271

M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

10A of the Act to Unit II treating it as an expansion of Unit I. 4. Others. 4.1. The Learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act; 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

10A of the Act to Unit II treating it as an expansion of Unit I. 4. Others. 4.1. The Learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act; 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

10A of the Act to Unit II treating it as an expansion of Unit I. 4. Others. 4.1. The Learned AO has erred in levying interest under Section 234B and Section 234C of the Act; 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 DCIT Vs Honeywell Automation India Ltd ITA Nos.2180/PUN/2024 & CO 06/PUN/2025 3.2 On first two additions/disallowances the matter travelled up to Tribunal, wherein by the order dt. 19/07/2019 passed in ITA 287/PUN/2015 the Ld. Co-ordinate bench vacated the denial of tax exemption/holiday claimed u/s 10A

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

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.168 & 1708/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

10A of the Act on the disallowances made by the Ld. AO should be granted to the Appellant. 168/PUN/2018 4 M/s. Tata Technologies Ltd. Common Grounds Ground No.10 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that

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

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.168 & 1708/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

10A of the Act on the disallowances made by the Ld. AO should be granted to the Appellant. 168/PUN/2018 4 M/s. Tata Technologies Ltd. Common Grounds Ground No.10 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is separately initiated.” 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before ld.CIT(A) it was stated that in the year under consideration the project was not commenced and only a Joint Venture Agreement was entered. However, the assessee grossly erred in treating the stamp

TATA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

10A of the Act on the disallowances made by the Ld. AO should be granted to the Appellant. Common Grounds Ground No. 14 14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under Section 234B of the Act. The Appellant prays that the charge of interest under

HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO.PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

u/s. 10A was allowed by Assessing Officer in scrutiny assessment proceedings. Thus, in view of the facts of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, ground No. 1 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed.” Considering the above, we are of the considered opinion, in view of the binding ratio

HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO.PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

u/s. 10A was allowed by Assessing Officer in scrutiny assessment proceedings. Thus, in view of the facts of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, ground No. 1 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed.” Considering the above, we are of the considered opinion, in view of the binding ratio

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2),, PUNE vs. JAGTAP PATIL PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.35/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Jagtap Patil Promoters & Ward-8(2), Pune. Vs Builders, S.No.152, Pimple Gurav, Pune – 411061. Pan: Aagfj 0403 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suniol Ganoo – Ar Revenue By Shri M.M.Chate – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Pune For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)- 6, Pune Dated 04.10.2017 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2016 Passed By The Ito Ward 8(2) Pune U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Not Appreciating That It Was Only After Scrutiny Proceedings Started That The Assessee Paid The Mat. Thus By Filing Nil Return & Not Claiming Deduction U/S 80Ib(10) The Assessee Was Trying To Evade Payment Of Taxes. The Claim Of The Assessee That Filing Of Nil Return Was Clerical Error Does Not Hold Ground? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating The Ratio Laid

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance. However, the assessee’s Authorised representative attended on 19/12/2016, just 14 days before the time barring date for the assessment order. It was noted by the AO that assessee had shown NIL Income, Nil tax payable in the return. However, the AR vide written submission dated 19/12/2016, ITA No.35/PUN/2018for

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

10A of the Act was rejected. It was categorically held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that the assessee was eligible for such benefit on the assessed income, as enhanced due to disallowance of employer’s as well as employees’ contribution towards PF/ESIC. 37. In addition to the above, the issue of higher deduction on the enhanced profits

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

10A of the Act was rejected. It was categorically held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that the assessee was eligible for such benefit on the assessed income, as enhanced due to disallowance of employer’s as well as employees’ contribution towards PF/ESIC. 37. In addition to the above, the issue of higher deduction on the enhanced profits

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

10A of the Act was rejected. It was categorically held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that the assessee was eligible for such benefit on the assessed income, as enhanced due to disallowance of employer’s as well as employees’ contribution towards PF/ESIC. 37. In addition to the above, the issue of higher deduction on the enhanced profits

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

10A of the Act was rejected. It was categorically held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that the assessee was eligible for such benefit on the assessed income, as enhanced due to disallowance of employer’s as well as employees’ contribution towards PF/ESIC. 37. In addition to the above, the issue of higher deduction on the enhanced profits

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

10A of the Act was rejected. It was categorically held by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that the assessee was eligible for such benefit on the assessed income, as enhanced due to disallowance of employer’s as well as employees’ contribution towards PF/ESIC. 37. In addition to the above, the issue of higher deduction on the enhanced profits