KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY 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.594/Pn/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kpit Technologies Limited, (Earlier Known As Kpit Cummins Infosystems Ltd.) Plot No.35/36, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Phase I, Midc, Hinjewadi Phase 1 Rd, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaack7308N Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle -14, Pune

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. IGATE COMPUTER SYSTEM LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

68,32,323/-. The assessee has already disallowed Rs.50,00,000/- in the computation of income.” 35. The requirement of section 14(2) of the Act is that the Assessing Officer is to record as to why the disallowance made by the assessee i.e. Rs.50 lakhs under section 14A

ANUJ UMESH GOEL,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1632/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

14A of the Act read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, the assessee has earned substantial share of profit from partnership concerns and hence, the aforesaid disallowance. As far as the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules is concerned, then the same is as per provisions of the Act and in view

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. There is a delay of 565 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit 2 explaining the reasons for such delay which is partly due to the then prevailing Covid

KUMAR PROPERTIES AND REAL ESTATE PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.684/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kumar Properties & Real Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Pune. Estate Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Kumar Capital, East Street, Camp, Pune-411001. Pan : Aaack7490H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan R. Vora & Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 7, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 23.02.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Promoter & Developer Of The Housing Project. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year

68,680/-. As regards, the addition on account of provision for expense of Rs.11,38,26,228/-, the ld. CIT(A) considering the details of provision made and the submission of the appellant that out of the total sum of Rs.11,38,26,228/-, an amount of Rs.8,70,76,854/- was directly included as part of the closing work

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

14A(2). Since the order of the ld. CIT(A) is based on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases referred (supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal no.2 filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 15. Ground

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.

14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. The stated judgement in the case of Cheminvest Limited (supra) is relevant. 25. Therefore, after hearing both the sides and considering the above written submission of the assessee on this issue, we are of the opinion that the grounds are required to be allowed in favour of the assessee

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.

14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. The stated judgement in the case of Cheminvest Limited (supra) is relevant. 25. Therefore, after hearing both the sides and considering the above written submission of the assessee on this issue, we are of the opinion that the grounds are required to be allowed in favour of the assessee