MR KEDAR JAGDISH MANKAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowance of TDS for Rs.1,86,170/- without any basis. 10. That, the ADDL/JCIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the demand

SMT. SUJATA SANTOSH GAWADE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY SSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1775/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sujata Santosh Gawade (M/S. Mahalaxmi Constructions) Shah Khandelwal Jain & Associates Chartered Accountants Level 3, Riverside Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Near Rto, Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Afmpb8935J Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 8, Pune

TDS claimed disallowed in the year under consideration, income for which was offered to tax by the appellant in F.Y 2008-09, and that

SIDHESH MOHAN RAIKAR,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.294/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

disallowance of TDS made in the intimation order. Since, the TDS disallowance has been adjudicated in para 5.1 of this

SG ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

disallow the same on account of non-deduction of TDS thereupon. The CIT(A) has granted part relief to the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. S.G. ANALYTICS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

disallow the same on account of non-deduction of TDS thereupon. The CIT(A) has granted part relief to the assessee

M/S PRATHAM CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.M/S. Pratham Constructions, Vs Pr.Cit (Central), Pune. 208/2A, Near Swaminathan Clinic, Station Road, Pimpri, Pune-411018. Pan: Aabfp 3894 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahesh O. Rajora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Pune (For Short, „Pcit‟), Dated 23.03.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

TDS. However, the assessee has not added back the same while computing its total income nor the Assessing Officer (AO) has disallowed

RAJARAMBAPU SHETKARI AND SHETMAJUR SAHHAYA SAMITI,,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SANGLI

Appeal is allowed for stastical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.370/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

TDS there is no loss of revenue. 4. The learned.CIT(A) on facts and circumstances of case erred in confirming the addition of Rs.65,69,674/- as even though no tax is payable by deductees.” 4. We next note that the CIT(A) has affirmed the Assessing Officer’s action invoking section 40(a)(ia) disallowance

KUMAR BUILDERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kumar Builders, 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Centre (Kbc) Opp. Pune Central, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411 001. Pan : Aacfk1478L .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

disallowance of incorrect claim of TDS credit vide his order dated 29.12.2016 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved

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

TDS was paid during the impugned assessment year 2010-2011, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Appellant denies himself in law and on facts to be liable to be tax on an amount being Rs.12,16,496/-, being addition made as disallowance

SANKET FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1956/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sanket Food Products Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3), Jalna Flat No.101, Bhoomi Apartment, 1St Floor, Nutan Laxmi Chs, Plot No.9, Jvpd Scheme, Ville Parle (W), N.S. Road, No.8, Mumbai – 400056 Pan: Aaecs0131P Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing 08-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11-02-2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am : This Appeal Is Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 24.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The History Of Notices By Itat Issued For Hearing In This Case Is As Under: Date Of Hearing Present / Absent 03.07.2020 Ld. Ar Present & Sought Adjournment 04.08.2020 Ld. Ar Present & Sought Adjournment 09.09.2020 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 09.10.2020 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 10.11.2020 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 08.01.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 30.04.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 16.09.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 08.11.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 15.12.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 08.02.2022 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 3. Even On 08.02.2022, No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. From The History Of Hearings Mentioned Above, It Can Be Seen That Sufficient Opportunity Has Already

disallowing Interest for delay in payment of TDS to the tune of Rs.86,169 11. In this case, assessment order

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

TDS & Disallowance for such Default vii. Refund Claim viii. Business Loss ix. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment x. Disallowance u/s 40A(7) (Gratuity

BVG DEVELOPRS,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX AUTHORITY, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Panda

disallowing the claim of TDS of Rs.15,69,603/- as reflected in 26AS. 3. Facts of the case, in brief

BVG DEVELOPRS,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX AUTHORITY, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Panda

disallowing the claim of TDS of Rs.15,69,603/- as reflected in 26AS. 3. Facts of the case, in brief

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Refund claim (iv) Unsecured loan 2.1. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Refund claim (iv) Unsecured loan 2.1. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143

ANAND CONSTRUWELL PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK -1, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.955/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Anand Construwell Private Vs. Pcit-1, Nashik. Limited, Ramchandra Apartments, Makhmalabad Road, Panchvati, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aafca7736H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit-1, Nashik [‘Ld. Pcit’] For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S. 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nashik May Please Be Quashed. 2. On The Basis Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Is Not Justified In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 By Holding That Provisions Of Section 69C Are Applicable In The Present Case As The Assessee Was Not Able To Explain The Sources Of Expenditure

disallowance of interest on TDS. 5. The proceedings u/s 154 of the Act were initiated vide notice dated 05/04/2023 proposing

SHRIRAM JAWAHAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR UDYOG vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

TDS, he has upheld the disallowance to the extent of Rs.6,07,91,993/-. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHREE SADGURU ENTERPRISES,, PUNE

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

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

TDS was deducted on such interest payment. The AO asked the assessee to explain why such interest paid to Reliance Capital should not be disallowed