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The above discussion suggests that if other conditions as provided u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act are satisfied and the money withdrawn by the shareholder is in the nature of loan or advance, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) kicks

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

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

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

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

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

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

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, 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.\n\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.\n\n30. On due consideration of the judgment of the Special\nBench of Delhi Tribunal

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

LOKMANGAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Lokmangal Co-Operative Bank Ltd., 128, Murarji Peth, Near Seva Sadan High School, Solapur – 413 001 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaaal0119J

TDS on the interest payments made to them, It is further seen that the entities nominal taken as members do not have the right to vote, not entitled to dividends, do not hold shares of the society. The exemption provided under the Act is to those society members who are covered by the concept of mutuality. It is applicable only

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

dividend from Mahesh to the tune of Rs.12,185/- but not disclosed in Balance sheet. You have shown Rs.5,000/- towards investments made in Anand Co-op. bank in Balance sheet. Please clarify. 6. As per form 3CD, Column 34(a), TDS other than salary is Rs.57,70,151/- whereas as per Form 26Q you have deposited Rs.57

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SILVER JUBILEE MOTORES LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-6, Vs. Silver Jubilee Motors Ltd., Pune 12, Moledina Road, Camp, Pune 411001 Pan : Aahcs8736P Appellant Respondent

deemed that he has deducted and paid the tax on such sum, thereby not attracting the disallowance. On a conjoint reading of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) and the first proviso to section 201(1), it clearly emerges that on failure to deduct tax at source or payment after deduction, the disallowance which is otherwise required

ANAND URBAN COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

TDS on payment of Audit Fees for the year. Here, the Ld. AO as well as CIT (A) has erred in disallowing the amount Rs.15,000, because Rs.50,000/- has already being disallowed by the Appellant in Income Tax Return. Since, it amounts to double disallowance of same payment, the addition needs to be deleted. 3 ITA.No.137/PUN./2024