FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

234C on the assessed income in the assessment years 2005-06 (ground No. 1), 2006-07 (ground No. 1) and 2008-09 (ground No. 1) is allowed. 8. In respect of disallowance of „Bad Debts Written Off‟ the ld. AR of assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of assessee on the ground that the bad debts

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

234C on the assessed income in the assessment years 2005-06 (ground No. 1), 2006-07 (ground No. 1) and 2008-09 (ground No. 1) is allowed. 8. In respect of disallowance of „Bad Debts Written Off‟ the ld. AR of assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of assessee on the ground that the bad debts

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

234C on the assessed income in the assessment years 2005-06 (ground No. 1), 2006-07 (ground No. 1) and 2008-09 (ground No. 1) is allowed. 8. In respect of disallowance of „Bad Debts Written Off‟ the ld. AR of assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of assessee on the ground that the bad debts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

234C on the assessed income in the assessment years 2005-06 (ground No. 1), 2006-07 (ground No. 1) and 2008-09 (ground No. 1) is allowed. 8. In respect of disallowance of „Bad Debts Written Off‟ the ld. AR of assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of assessee on the ground that the bad debts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

234C on the assessed income in the assessment years 2005-06 (ground No. 1), 2006-07 (ground No. 1) and 2008-09 (ground No. 1) is allowed. 8. In respect of disallowance of „Bad Debts Written Off‟ the ld. AR of assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of assessee on the ground that the bad debts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

234C on the assessed income in the assessment years 2005-06 (ground No. 1), 2006-07 (ground No. 1) and 2008-09 (ground No. 1) is allowed. 8. In respect of disallowance of „Bad Debts Written Off‟ the ld. AR of assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of assessee on the ground that the bad debts

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

The appeal is dismissed as not pressed

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

234C of the Act of INR 11,33,09,568 and INR 3,37,970 respectively on account of unanticipated additions made to the total income of the Appellant on account of transfer pricing and corporate tax adjustment which is due to difference of opinion and as at the due date of payment of advance tax by no means

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

TDS credit corresponding to the income offered by the Appellant. The AO shall give an opportunity of being heard to the Appellant and call for requisite details. The appeal filed on Ground No 1 is Partly allowed for statistical purposes. 5.2 Ground No. 2: Levy of Interest u/s 234B & 234C: The Appellant has contested the levy of interest under section

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

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 07-07-2022 has already

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

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 07-07-2022 has already

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

TDS credit of Rs.6,50,000/- and accordingly calculated interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. In response section

VISION ENTERPRISES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 192/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vision Enterprises, Hotel Sulai, Dhankawadi, Pune. Pan: Aajfv0168P . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Shri Akshay Garg Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; With The Following Grounds Of Appeal The Assessee Challenges The Revisionary Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Pune [For Short ‘Pcit’] Dt. 22/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] For Assessment Year [For Short ‘Ay’] 2015-16; “1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Assessment

TDS’] u/s 194A(1) of the Act. (ii) Repayment of unsecured loan otherwise than by an account payee cheque/draft in violation of provisions of section 269T. (iii)Failure to charge interest u/s 234C

M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

234C of the Act; 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed / furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that the disallowances made by the Learned AO is not in accordance

SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

234C of the Act; 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed / furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that the disallowances made by the Learned AO is not in accordance

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

234C of the Act; 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed / furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that the disallowances made by the Learned AO is not in accordance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SUNGARD SOLUTIONS (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

234C of the Act; 4.2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the premise that the Appellant has concealed / furnished inaccurate particulars of income, without appreciating the fact that the disallowances made by the Learned AO is not in accordance

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

TDS credit allowed to the appellant by the CPC. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. Regarding the issue of charging of interest u/s 234 of the Act, it is held that charging interest under sections 234 is consequential in nature and mandatory. This has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjum M.H.Ghaswala

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

234C of the Act.\n7.\nYour appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify alter and / or delete any of the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.\nDelay condonation :\n1.1 There is a delay of 16 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the submission and found that there is sufficient and reasonable