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

TDS while making payment. Referring to the notice dated 31.03.2017 u/s 148 of the Act and a copy of reason recorded by the Ld. AO provided to the assessee vide letter dated 29.05.2017 (pages 1, 2 and 3 of the paper book refers), the Ld. AR submitted that the above stated reason was the solitary reason on the basis

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

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under

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

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

47. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that where any person who was required to deduct any sum in accordance with provisions of the Act or under section 192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in view of Ground No. 1 above the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the A.O. Rs.9,47,182/- which had an effect of reducing the loss declared. The addition be deleted. 3. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in view of Ground No. 1 above the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the A.O. Rs.9,47,182/- which had an effect of reducing the loss declared. The addition be deleted. 3. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in view of Ground No. 1 above the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the A.O. Rs.9,47,182/- which had an effect of reducing the loss declared. The addition be deleted. 3. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeals of assessee for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 431 To 434/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in view of Ground No. 1 above the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the A.O. Rs.9,47,182/- which had an effect of reducing the loss declared. The addition be deleted. 3. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter

M/S KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2021-22

47,730/-. The assessee had opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act which was accepted by the CPC in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee filed the rectification application u/s 154 of the Act on account of short grant of TDS. However, the CPC instead of granting any benefit for short deduction of TDS

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS credit of YAPL and ADEPL amounting to\nINR 18,88,630 and INR 7,74,946 respectively to the Appellant.\n3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is a company\nincorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 24.01.2012. It is a\nsubsidiary of Relex Holdings Netherlands B.V. and is primarily engaged in\nthe business of automation products

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

TDS was when the income was by way of rent; Explanation under the said section defines ‘rent’. 9 Referring to the facts of the case, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee stated that there was no lease, sub-lease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement between the assessee and the Board, for the use of land/water. He further

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

TDS was when the income was by way of rent; Explanation under the said section defines ‘rent’. 9 Referring to the facts of the case, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee stated that there was no lease, sub-lease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement between the assessee and the Board, for the use of land/water. He further

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred