COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

68,50,567 6. Disallowance of Deduction, as discussed in para 5.7 16,19,905 25,63,55,143 Total Income 7,91,33,529 Rounded off. 7,91,33,530 5. From the above it is evident that the disallowance of claim of Rs.23.52 crores (rounded off) is one major addition made by the Assessing Officer rejecting the claim/alternate

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 वष"

35(1)(ii) and 10(21) of the Act. Since the provisions of section 12(1) does not apply to this case, the provisions of section 2(24)(iia) of the Act applies and therefore, all the Voluntary Contributions including those specified for the corpus of the Trust, constitutes “income” in the absence of any provisions providing

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

35. Coming to the next issue of leased line charges, he referred to the order of Assessing Officer, wherein he has talked about process royalty and equipment royalty. He then referred to section 9(1)(vi) Explanation 2(iii) and 2(iva) of the Act and pointed out that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Verizone Communications

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

35. Coming to the next issue of leased line charges, he referred to the order of Assessing Officer, wherein he has talked about process royalty and equipment royalty. He then referred to section 9(1)(vi) Explanation 2(iii) and 2(iva) of the Act and pointed out that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Verizone Communications

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

35. Coming to the next issue of leased line charges, he referred to the order of Assessing Officer, wherein he has talked about process royalty and equipment royalty. He then referred to section 9(1)(vi) Explanation 2(iii) and 2(iva) of the Act and pointed out that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Verizone Communications

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

35. Coming to the next issue of leased line charges, he referred to the order of Assessing Officer, wherein he has talked about process royalty and equipment royalty. He then referred to section 9(1)(vi) Explanation 2(iii) and 2(iva) of the Act and pointed out that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Verizone Communications

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and also made further 26 CO No.43/PUN/2025 addition of the interest paid of Rs.17,80,059/- by invoking the provisions of section 37 of the Act. We find before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

35. It can be seen from the command of section 91 that India is obliged to allow credit for taxes paid in the countries with which it has not entered into any DTAA on doubly taxed income. We find that the second question before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

35. It can be seen from the command of section 91 that India is obliged to allow credit for taxes paid in the countries with which it has not entered into any DTAA on doubly taxed income. We find that the second question before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

68 33,85,80,176 14 9,02,79,805 8 4,67,15,104 7. Referring to the above, he submitted that in the subsequent submissions the assessee relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Construction vs. DCIT reported in 38 DTR 19 has explained to the Assessing Officer that

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

68,22,860 Rs. 25.61.51.210) thereby assessing total income at Rs.25.68,22.860/- and computed balance tax liability at Rs.2,73,95,728/- instead of refund declared in return of income of Rs.31.40,690/-.” 2.1 Aggrieved by the order u/sec.143(1) of the Act, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A).Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] 2.2 Aggrieved

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

IV, Bangalore. The assessee preferred second appeal before the Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal. Subsequently, a prayer was made for transfer of appeals 10 and IT(TP) A.No.10/Bang/2014 from Bangalore to Pune, which request was accepted and the appeals were transferred to Pune. Under these circumstances, a question arises as to which Hon’ble High Court exercises jurisdiction over

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

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

iv)The term „consideration‟ which has been used in section 35AB of the Act is understood to have a wider meaning than „expenditure‟. (v) The term „consideration‟ includes payment in kind. (vi)Without prejudice to the above, even the term „expenditure‟ would include payments in kind. (vii) Meaning of the term „lump sum‟ as used in section 35AB

BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

iv. Depreciation Claim v. Default in TDS vi. Default in TDS & Disallowance for such Default vii. Refund Claim viii. Business Loss ix. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment x. Disallowance u/s 40A(7) (Gratuity provision) xi. Expenses incurred for Earning Exempt Income xii. Excess Contribution to Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund xiii. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xiv. Business

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

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

iv) Misc. expenses written off 5,037,402 v) Leave Equalization reserve 2,02,71,804 vi) Provision for gratuity 7,82,750 vii) Cash payment 40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods

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

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

iv) Misc. expenses written off 5,037,402 v) Leave Equalization reserve 2,02,71,804 vi) Provision for gratuity 7,82,750 vii) Cash payment 40A(3) 51,622 viii) Custom duty payable 4,15,19,739 ix) Provision for bad debts 1,08,67,587 x) Provision for write off on 19,13,60,149 material/finish goods

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

68,32,010/- without appreciating the facts of the case, and the fact that all the material facts regarding the issue of sale of sugar at concessional rate to members, are part of the record before Ld. AO, and the issue of allowability is highly debatable issue, in view of the same your appellant prays for deletion of entire penalty