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

TDS is not required to deduct as per sub-clause (ia) of clause (iii) of sub- section (3) of section 194

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

TDS is not required to deduct as per sub-clause (ia) of clause (iii) of sub- section (3) of section 194

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

TDS is not required to deduct as per sub-clause (ia) of clause (iii) of sub- section (3) of section 194

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

M/S. BAFNA BUILDERS & LAND DEVELOPERS,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Bafna Builders & Jcit, Range - 1 Land Developers Jalgaon 425001 "Nayantara", Subhash Chowk Vs. Jalgaon 425001 Pan – Aadfb4627P Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sunil Ganoo Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A) 2, Nashik Dated 13.01.2015 Passed In Case No. Nsk/Cit(A)-2/4713-14 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short “The Act”.

3) disallowance of Rs.8,97,389/- made in the lower proceedings has not been pressed before us. Rejected accordingly. 10. Next comes assessee’s 6th substantive ground seeking to reverse Section 36(i)(iii) interest disallowance of Rs.49,43,223/- made in both the lower proceedings. Learned A.R. has placed reliance on tribunal’s order in AY 2011-12 (supra

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS @1% u/s 1941A would also be required to be deducted for extra amenities such as club membership fees, car parking fee, electricity and water facility. maintenance fee or any other charges of similar nature paid at the time of purchase of property which are incidental to transfer of the immovable property. From the above it is clear that there

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

TDS u/s 194J of the Act and justified the action of the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 22. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. There is no material on record to show that the HUL had provided any services like technical or managerial in nature

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

section 194(1) r.w.s. 40a(ia) disallowance of Rs.3,49,386/- on account of non- deduction of TDS on interest payments made to its members wherein the CIT(A) has affirmed the assessment findings to this effect as follows. “5. Ground No. 3 of the appeal relates to disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) on the default of deducting TDS

VIRAJ ESTATE PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

VIRAJ ESTATE PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

VIRAJ ESTATE PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

VIRAJ ESTATE PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

VIRAJ ESTATE PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

VIRAJ ESTATE PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

VIRAJ ESTATES PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

VIRAJ ESTATE PVT LTD,NASHIK vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

section of levy of late fee u/s 234E is a statutory provision effective from the year 2012 but there was no machinery provision u/s 200A of the Act which empowered the AO to make adjustment on account of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that in respect of TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. LALIT RAGHUNATHRAO SHINDE , PUNE

iii) Amount reflected in assessee's 26AS and transferred to Den Manoranjan\nSatellite Pvt. Ltd.\n(iv) Bank Statement of the assesse and Den Manoranjan Satellite Pvt. Ltd.\nshowing related transactions.\n(v) Bills / Vouchers issued by Den Manoranjan Satellite Pvt. Ltd. in the name\nof the assessee.\"\n4.\nSince the assessee failed to produce the requisite details