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

3,49,596/-. Accordingly, the proportionate TDS on other income, amounting to 33,555/- (50% of 67,111/-), should have been claimed by the Appellant in his return of income. However, this apportioned TDS credit has not been claimed by the Appellant and the same cannot be allowed to be claimed now. 5.1.5 The AO is directed to verify

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

234B, 234C\n& 234D if applicable. Issue demand noticed and challan accordingly. Issue Penalty\nnotice under section 274 r.w.s.270A of the Income Tax Act 1961, separately for mis-\nreporting and under-reporting of income.\nAggrieved by the assessment order, assessee now is in\nappeal ITA No.632/PUN/2022 before this Tribunal raising the\nfollowing grounds of appeal:-\n“Based on the facts

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

234B, 234C\n& 234D if applicable. Issue demand noticed and challan accordingly. Issue Penalty\nnotice under section 274 r.w.s.270A of the Income Tax Act 1961, separately for mis-\nreporting and under-reporting of income.\n\nAggrieved by the assessment order, assessee now is in\nappeal ITA No.632/PUN/2022 before this Tribunal raising the\nfollowing grounds of appeal:-\n\n“Based

APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS) amounting to 3,48,250/-, which was deducted from the income of the Appellant. Ground No.5 5.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case the LD AO erred in invoking section 69 to tax undisclosed investments when the appellant is assessed under section 44AD on presumptive basis. 5.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, 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.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

234B of the Act.‖ 3. Learned counsel states at the outset that the assessee’s first substantive ground is general in nature. Rejected accordingly. 4. Next comes the first substantive issue of Section 10AA deduction disallowance of Rs.1,66,90,42,654/- made by the lower authorities invoking Section 10 AA(9) r.w.s. 80IA (10) of the Act thereby alleging

NANASAHEB BHAGAWAN SASAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

234B and 234C is calculated. 3. Aggrieved by such rectification order passed by the Ld. AO/CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee upholding only the proportionate TDS credit allowed by the Ld. AO/CPC by observing as under : 3 ITA No.722/PUN/2025, AY 2022-23 “4.8 The ground of appeal

CARRORO INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 234B of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds of appeal on or before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose off the appeal according to law.” 3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CARRARO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 234B of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds of appeal on or before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose off the appeal according to law.” 3

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS amount of INR 90,000 while computing the tax liability of the Appellant and consequential1y error in computation of interest liability under section 234C of the Act. 17. Erroneous levy of interest under section 2348 of the Act Erred in levying additional interest under section 234B of the Act on account of unanticipated additions made to the total income

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

234B and 234C of the Act. Each and above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant.” 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that this tribunal’s recent common order in Revenue’s appeals ITA Nos. 42 and 43/PUN/2021 for A.Yrs. 2015-16 and 2016-17 dated

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

234B and 234C of the Act. Each and above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant.” 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that this tribunal’s recent common order in Revenue’s appeals ITA Nos. 42 and 43/PUN/2021 for A.Yrs. 2015-16 and 2016-17 dated

SAMEER SHRIKANT PISE,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, is not chargeable in case of Appellant being under liquidation under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The AO is directed to verify the issue, its applicability in the case of the appellant and take action as per law. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Aggrieved

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

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

234B & 234C of the Act, 1961. 4) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on merit in confirming penalty under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5) The appellant craves for leave to amend, modify or add to any of the above grounds of appeal

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

TDS of Rs.3.20 crores\nand self assessment tax of Rs.0.43 crore.\n15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that specific disclosure of\nmaterial facts were furnished for making the claim in the return. Referring to page\n7 of the paper book for assessment year 2013-14, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee\ndrew the attention of the Bench

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ENTERPRISEDB SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 989/Pun/2023 & Co No. 008/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

TDS, the Ld. AO disallowed the License fees u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act and assessed the total income accordingly u/s 143(3) of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 8 DCIT Vs Enterprises Software India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 989/PUN/2023 & Co No. 008/PUN/2024 2.3 Aggrieved assessee carried the matter in an appeal u/s 246A

VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

3 years from the end of the relevant A Y 2015-16, as it is below Rs.50.00 Lakhs as per section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the Notice issued by the JAO and the assessment 2\ndone thereafter are without jurisdiction, bad in law and therefore needs to be set aside.\n5.\nIn the facts

SACHIN GOVIND KELKAR,PUNE vs. CIT (A), PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical

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

section 234A, 234B and 234 C of the Act and the same is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify and or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal mentioned herein above.” 3 ITA.No.546/PUN./2024 3. It next emerges with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the main issue herein

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

234B and 234C of the Act being mandatory and consequential in nature, is dismissed. 6. So far as the ground No.4 is concerned, the same relates to the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the disallowance of Rs.5,90,000/- being remuneration to working partners. 7. Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessing Officer during