SANTOSH SHANKAR GUJAR,LAXMI NAGAR, THERGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(3), PUNE, AKURDI, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1654 & 2038/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Santosh Shankar Gujar, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Pune. H/No.246, Shiv Parvati Bunglow, Laxmi Nagar, Thergaon- 411033. Pan : Alnpg9944K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mrs. Vibha D. Gulabani Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.06.2024 & 29.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, 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.1654/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2014-15 For Adjudication.

TDS was deducted, however no return was furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and notice

SANTOSH SHANKAR GUJAR,NEAR VITTHAL RUKMINI MANDIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(3), PUNE, AKURDI, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1654 & 2038/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Santosh Shankar Gujar, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Pune. H/No.246, Shiv Parvati Bunglow, Laxmi Nagar, Thergaon- 411033. Pan : Alnpg9944K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mrs. Vibha D. Gulabani Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.06.2024 & 29.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, 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.1654/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2014-15 For Adjudication.

TDS was deducted, however no return was furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and notice

KENERSYS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

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

TDS Rs.8,823/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 on 28-03-2014 to reopen the assessment for assessment year 2009-10. In reassessment

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

reassessment issue had been framed without even examining or making section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

reassessment issue had been framed without even examining or making section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

reassessment issue had been framed without even examining or making section 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ZEAL INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

reassessment proceedings on being asked as to why the interest expenses of Rs. 4,69,57,184/- should not be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia), the appellant submitted that the said expenses cannot be disallowed for non deduction of TDS

SHRI SAI ANIRUDDHA EDUCATION SOCIETY,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2661/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

reassessment proceedings, various applications filed by the assessee for registration u/s.12A(1)(ac) of the Act have been rejected and ld. AO concluded the proceedings observing that the assessee has not offered explanation for the expenses incurred during the year including TDS

SHRAMIK SERVA SEVA TRUST,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO (E) WARD-1(1) , NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3004/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shramik Serva Seva Trust, Vs Ito, A/P. Shrigonda Factory, Exemption Tal. Shrigonda, Dist. Ward - 1(1), Ahmednagar Nashik Maharashtra Pan-Aabts1964L Appellant Respondent

TDS u/s 194C. 4. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. The assessee is a charitable trust granted registration u/s 12A of the Act vide order dated 05.11.1991. No return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 was furnished. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) after recording the reasons carried out the reassessment

SUNAND CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

TDS. 17. We find Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) has held that after insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, with effect from 1-4-1989, section 147 has an effect that Assessing Officer has to assess or reassess

SUNANDA CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

TDS. 17. We find Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (supra) has held that after insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, with effect from 1-4-1989, section 147 has an effect that Assessing Officer has to assess or reassess

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. PAN INTERNATIONAL, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.175/Pun/2020 & Co No. 23/Pun/2022 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Pan International, 347, Afl House, Off Dhole Patil Rd, Behind Hotel Meru, Pune – 411 001 . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Pan: Aabfp4234F & Cross Objector द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sharad Vaze Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Revenue Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 06/11/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Quashing The Order Of Assessment Dt. 10/03/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Pune[For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2008-09 On Technical-Cum-Legal Ground.

reassessment proceeding is saved by section 292BB of the Act? 3. Before taking up the grounds for adjudication, let us first voice the facts emanating from case records are; 3.1 The assessee is a resident firm engaged in the business of manufacturing of machined components and exports thereof and trading in glass epoxy-sheets and machine tools etc., which filed

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

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

reassessment u/s. 147 be declared null and void. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.12,837,828/- u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of information system charges and telecommunication expenses debited by the assessee without appreciating that no disallowance was warranted on facts of the case. ITA Nos.1163 & 1164/PUN/2017 3 John Deere

JOHN DEERE EQUIPMENT PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

reassessment u/s. 147 be declared null and void. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.12,837,828/- u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act in respect of information system charges and telecommunication expenses debited by the assessee without appreciating that no disallowance was warranted on facts of the case. ITA Nos.1163 & 1164/PUN/2017 3 John Deere

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

reassessment proceedings were initiated after recording reasons that "bogus companies run by Mr. Anand Sharma and group had provided bogus commission entries to Bleach Chem Enterprises, prop. Smt Varsha Prafulla Zende (PAN:AABPZ2541C) during FY 2009-10 to the tune of Rs.4,29,452/-. Since, these are bogus commission entries, the assessee has inflated expenses to the tune of Rs.4

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

reassessment proceedings and the same being jurisdictional issue we will first take up this ground for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having source of income from Agriculture and Poultry. Regular return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 furnished on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of ₹11,40,448 and Agricultural income

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

TDS certificates / 15G forms for verification. The assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The invocation of 6 CO No.43/PUN/2025 provisions of section 115BBE of the Act was also challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 8. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal to fifty percent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income" 3.7.3 During course of assessment, the assessee sold a immovable property for the sale consideration

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(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in response to which, the Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining