ADITYA ARUNKUMAR PODDAR,PUNE vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2757/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Ashwinikumar Ramkumar Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Poddar, Pune. Plot No.342, Sind Society, Baner Road, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Aarpp7606E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2758/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Aditya Arunkumar Poddar, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Plot No.130, Sind Society, Pune. Baner Road, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Ahspp3084G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Kandelwal Revenue By : Smt. Sonal L. Sonkavde Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 28.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-11 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Two Different Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2757/Pun/2025 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

deemed to be the dividend income of the shareholder. It is this presumption juris et 10. The above discussion suggests that if other conditions as provided u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied and the money withdrawn by the shareholder is in the nature of loan or advance, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) kicks

ASHWINIKUMAR RAMKUMAR PODDAR,PUNE vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2757/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Ashwinikumar Ramkumar Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Poddar, Pune. Plot No.342, Sind Society, Baner Road, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Aarpp7606E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2758/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Aditya Arunkumar Poddar, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Plot No.130, Sind Society, Pune. Baner Road, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Ahspp3084G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Kandelwal Revenue By : Smt. Sonal L. Sonkavde Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 28.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-11 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Two Different Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2757/Pun/2025 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

deemed to be the dividend income of the shareholder. It is this presumption juris et 10. The above discussion suggests that if other conditions as provided u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied and the money withdrawn by the shareholder is in the nature of loan or advance, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) kicks

KIRAN BABURAO JADHAV,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.311/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act in respect of advances made in 4 Shri Kiran Baburao Jadhav nature of commercial transactions. The copy of CBDT circular is placed on record. 9. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. 10. We have heard the rival

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CHAUDHARY CARS PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS deducted and contracts amount paid by the appellant was reflected. It is absolutely clear that no money was received by the appellant from M/s. BNCPPL during the year under consideration, hence, question of deemed dividend

JITENDRA KAPILDEO GUPTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

deemed dividends u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. 20. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made in the appeal in ITA No. 2522/PUN/2017 by the assessee and requested us to adopt the same. Since, in the Revenue‟s appeal in ITA No. 135/PUN/2018, we held that the very transaction is undertaken out of business consideration, the question

M/S. SUBU CHEM PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

deemed dividends u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. 20. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made in the appeal in ITA No. 2522/PUN/2017 by the assessee and requested us to adopt the same. Since, in the Revenue‟s appeal in ITA No. 135/PUN/2018, we held that the very transaction is undertaken out of business consideration, the question

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. JITENDRA K. GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

deemed dividends u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. 20. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made in the appeal in ITA No. 2522/PUN/2017 by the assessee and requested us to adopt the same. Since, in the Revenue‟s appeal in ITA No. 135/PUN/2018, we held that the very transaction is undertaken out of business consideration, the question

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M SUBU CHEM PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

deemed dividends u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. 20. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made in the appeal in ITA No. 2522/PUN/2017 by the assessee and requested us to adopt the same. Since, in the Revenue‟s appeal in ITA No. 135/PUN/2018, we held that the very transaction is undertaken out of business consideration, the question

SHREE GARUDA PLANT PRODUCTS LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, NASHIK

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.492/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik. Pan: Aaacg 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishint Gandhi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 19.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Nashik ["The Cit (A)" For Short] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Nashik, ["The Ao" For Short] Which Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Without Affording A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Invoking Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Act, Whereby A Disallowance Of Rs.12,81,831/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Appellant.

deemed dividend. Accordingly, impugned addition is upheld. Therefore, the Ground No.3 is partly allowed as discussed in earlier paras. Ground No.4: Rental Income: 4. It is mentioned in the Assessment Order that the Assessee had given two separate premises on rent to two different companies. In ITA No.492/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products Ltd.[A] the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2,, NASHIK vs. NARESH J. KARDA,, NASHIK

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

deemed dividend addition. We thus reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions to delete this entire addition amount of Rs.4,82,66,792/- in issue. The Revenue’s instant appeal ITA.No.798/PUN./2019 fails and assessee’s appeal ITA.No.815/Pun./2019 succeeds as the necessary corollary. Ordered accordingly. 9. Next assessment year 2014-15 involves Revenue’s and assessee’s cross

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2,, NASHIK vs. NARESH J. KARDA,, NASHIK

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

deemed dividend addition. We thus reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions to delete this entire addition amount of Rs.4,82,66,792/- in issue. The Revenue’s instant appeal ITA.No.798/PUN./2019 fails and assessee’s appeal ITA.No.815/Pun./2019 succeeds as the necessary corollary. Ordered accordingly. 9. Next assessment year 2014-15 involves Revenue’s and assessee’s cross

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2,, NASHIK vs. NARESH J. KARDA,, NASHIK

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

deemed dividend addition. We thus reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions to delete this entire addition amount of Rs.4,82,66,792/- in issue. The Revenue’s instant appeal ITA.No.798/PUN./2019 fails and assessee’s appeal ITA.No.815/Pun./2019 succeeds as the necessary corollary. Ordered accordingly. 9. Next assessment year 2014-15 involves Revenue’s and assessee’s cross

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MUKUND JAISHANKAR DHARIYA,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.330/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) to the extent of Rs. 60 lacs received from M/s. Dhariya Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (DIDPL) in which his share holding is 23.04% without appreciating the fact that the so called mobilization advance of Rs. 60 lacs is nothing but a loan. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

MUKUND DHARIYA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.330/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) to the extent of Rs. 60 lacs received from M/s. Dhariya Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. (DIDPL) in which his share holding is 23.04% without appreciating the fact that the so called mobilization advance of Rs. 60 lacs is nothing but a loan. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

SATISH S. BANSAL,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

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

dividend income. The disallowance has been made on the income from partnership firm. The ld. AR submitted that the authorities below have erred in holding that the borrowed money was used for investment in partnership firm, where the assessee has taken loan for the specific purpose of purchase of car and acquiring property. The loan was not used

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

deemed to be taxed in the hands of the shareholders and it shall not exceed 10 per cent of the gross amount of dividend". That is a provision in the protocol, which is essentially an integral part of the treaty, and the protocol to a treaty is as binding as the provisions in the main treaty itself In the absence

M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

TDS) was cumbersome and involves a lot of paper work and collection from the company would be much easier. (ii) Since there was no tax incidence in the hands of the shareholder that would encourage investment in the shares of domestic companies. Sec.115O so introduced in Chapter XII-D of the Act reads thus: “115-O. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

deem it appropriate to\ndeal with this ground while adjudicating the Revenue's appeal\nin ITA No. 1256/PUN/2023 in subsequent paras.\n29. Ground No.11 raised by the assessee is that for\ncomputing book profit u/s.115JB, disallowance u/s.14A\nwas not required to be added.\n30. On due consideration of the judgment of the Special\nBench of Delhi Tribunal in the case

MESSUNG SYSTEMS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2585/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

TDS. Similar issue involved in A.Y.2010-11 has been accepted. The AO rejected explanation of the appellant /assessee. The AO observed that Microlog has been paid nearly 55% of agency commission whereas turnover of business at Kolhapur is negligible. The AO also observed that the commission has been paid to the entities which are in the status of systems houses