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

249(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961r.w.s.5 of Limitation Act and hence the appeal sought to be instituted belatedly is hereby rejected. 8. In the result, as delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly.” 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds

MRINALINI JAYANT PURANIK,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20 Mrinalini Jayant Puranik Ito, Ward 2(2), Pune Flat 14, Khagol Coop Society, Vs. S.No.38/1, Panchavati, Pashan, Pune – 411008 Pan: Almpp5163E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

TDS 2 statement the assessee has received various income to the tune of Rs.2,63,15,529/-, the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons, issued notice to reopen the assessment as per provisions of section 147 of the Act and accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee in response to the same filed the return declaring total

BHUJBAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee stand DISMISSED on above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 0756/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Bhujbal Construction Company Gat No. 12/29, Someshwar Wadi, Pashan, Haveli, Baner Rd., Pune. Pan: Aaffb7317L . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)Pune-1. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

TDS’] from the expenditure of interest ₹20,35,033/- debited to Profit & Loss Account [in short ‘P&L’] and credited eight identified persons were disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the assessment vide order dt. 22/03/2016 was accordingly framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3.2 Aggrieved thereby assessee filed an appeal before

SAGAR JAYWANT ELAWANDE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD13(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.224/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(1), Pune. 457, Shaniwar Peth, Pune City, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aampe1025B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary & Also Sold Immovable Property But Return Of Income Was Not Filed. On The Basis Of Above Information, The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 & Notices U/S 148A(B), 148 & 142(1) Respectively Were Issued To The Assessee. Since The Assessee Did Not Reply To Any Of The Notices

2 the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining total income of Rs.2,16,34,760/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained investments in purchase of immovable property to the tune of Rs.1,83,64,830/- u/s 69 and salary income of Rs.16,44,930/- and also an amount

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

2) of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”) without recording any satisfaction which is a sine qua non for making disallowance under section 14A. 10. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the claim of the Appellant

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

2) of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”) without recording any satisfaction which is a sine qua non for making disallowance under section 14A. 10. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the claim of the Appellant

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

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

2 and Explanation 4 of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s in the case of Synopsis International Old Ltd. ITA Nos.42 & 43/PUN/2021 for A.Y’s: 2015-16 & 16-17 DCIT Vs. M/s.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (R) (2012) 28 Taxmann.com 162 and Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. (2011) 16 Taxmann.com

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

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

2 and Explanation 4 of Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and decisions of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s in the case of Synopsis International Old Ltd. ITA Nos.42 & 43/PUN/2021 for A.Y’s: 2015-16 & 16-17 DCIT Vs. M/s.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (R) (2012) 28 Taxmann.com 162 and Samsung Electronics Company Ltd. (2011) 16 Taxmann.com

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2 of Schedule VI-A and limited upto (9-10-2\nTotal (12a + 12b) [limited upto (9-10)]\n11\n1969624243\n12a\n83050000\n125\n5072090\n120\n99122090\n2.\nThe deduction u/s.10AA is as per Sr. No. 11 of 'Sch-Part B - TI'.\nFurther, the deduction u/s.10AA as per 'Sch-10AA' is Rs.\n196,96,24,249 which is the same amount

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2 of Schedule VI-A and limited upto (9-10-2\nC\nTotal (12a + 12b) [limited upto (9-10)]\n11\n1969624243\n12a\n83050000\n125\n5072090\n120\n99122090\n\n2.\nThe deduction u/s.10AA is as per Sr. No. 11 of 'Sch-Part B - TI'.\nFurther, the deduction u/s.10AA as per 'Sch-10AA' is Rs.\n196,96,24,249 which

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

249 CTR 102 (Kerala) wherein the word ―appears‖ has been understood to imply a ‗prima-facie‘ satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is sought to be made out that a prima-facie satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is enough to apply the provisions of section 10A(7) r.w.s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. 18. It is further submitted

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR 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

SHRI SAMPAT KACHARU DHAGE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

2. The assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not satisfied the condition of payment of advance tax as specified u/s 249(4)(b) without appreciating that the said condition was not applicable to the facts of the present case and therefore, the appeal ought to have

ABSTERGE ACME FILTERS I P LTD,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS (AO), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.509/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Absterge Acme Filters India The Assistant Private Limited, Vs Commissioner Of Income Plot No.9, Sarang Society, Tax, Cpc, Tds, (A.O.), Garkheda Road, Garkhe Area, Ghaziabad. Aurangabad – 431005. Pan: Aabcc 6133 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai– Dr Date Of Hearing 23/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.08.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Of Appeal & Dismissing The Same Without Appreciating That There Was A Sufficient Cause For Delay. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Levy Of Fees U/S 234E Rs.8524/- For Non-Filing Of Tds Statement. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Order U/S.200A Even Though The Section Did Not Provide For Levy Of Fees U/S.234E For The Relevant Assessment Year. 4. The Appellant Craves To Add, Alter, Modify Or Substitute Any

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming levy of fees u/s 234E Rs.8524/- for non-filing of TDS statement. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding order u/s.200A even though the Section did not provide for levy of fees u/s.234E for the relevant Assessment Year. 4. The appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

2 relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC\nin allowing the claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act.\n63.\nAfter hearing both sides, we find the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim\nof deduction u/s 35(2AB) on the ground that Form 3CM was not available and the\nassessee has not produced Form 3CL. We find

SHREE VINDHYA CAST COATERS LIMITED,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

2 of table above]- TDS has been deducted by RP and hence the responsibility to file TDS return was of the RP, however the TDS Return was duly filed by the New Management on 10-12-2021 ie within 3 days after handover of the company on 07-12-2021. The RP had informed the new management about the pending

SHREE VINDHYA CAST COATERS LIMITED,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

2 of table above]- TDS has been deducted by RP and hence the responsibility to file TDS return was of the RP, however the TDS Return was duly filed by the New Management on 10-12-2021 ie within 3 days after handover of the company on 07-12-2021. The RP had informed the new management about the pending