PUDHARI PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.10 To 12/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., The Ito, Tds, 2318, C Ward, Pudhari Bhavan, V Kolhapur – 416003. Bhausingji Road, S Kolhapur – 416002. Pan: Aadcp2453Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 10.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.10/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2019-20, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

TDS on Salary itself is not tenable in law. Further it is requested that: - 1. The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. It is prayed that the above claims and allowances be allowed.” Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that assessee

PUDHARI PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ,TDS, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.10 To 12/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., The Ito, Tds, 2318, C Ward, Pudhari Bhavan, V Kolhapur – 416003. Bhausingji Road, S Kolhapur – 416002. Pan: Aadcp2453Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 10.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.10/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2019-20, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

TDS on Salary itself is not tenable in law. Further it is requested that: - 1. The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. It is prayed that the above claims and allowances be allowed.” Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that assessee

PUDHARI PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.10 To 12/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., The Ito, Tds, 2318, C Ward, Pudhari Bhavan, V Kolhapur – 416003. Bhausingji Road, S Kolhapur – 416002. Pan: Aadcp2453Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 10.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.10/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2019-20, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

TDS on Salary itself is not tenable in law. Further it is requested that: - 1. The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 2. It is prayed that the above claims and allowances be allowed.” Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that assessee

SALASAR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.59/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Salasar Warehousing Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, V Ward-6(1), Pune. F-2,Warehouse, Sr.No.20/2A, S Near Mundhwa Bridge, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aamcs4834C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Kandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 27/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/11/2023

TDS payment of Rs.15,21,817/-, Employers contribution to PF of Rs.64,846/-, Employers contribution to ESI of Rs.16,045/-, Professional Tax of Rs.9,750/- and Bonus to employees of Rs.4,37,107/-, is not in accordance with the Act and the same be deleted. Just and proper relief be granted. 2. The appellant prays to be allowed

SHRIMADURJIT SEVA KENDRA,PUNE vs. THE ITO, WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2276/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shrimadurjit Seva Kendra, V The Income Tax Officer, S.No.117/1, Chowisawdi, S. Ward-8(3), Pune. Haveli, Pune – 412105. Pan: Absfs4340L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Panaji Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 31.07.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Addl./Jt.Cit(A), Panaji Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing Appellant'S Appeal Without Granting Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard. Appellant Assures To Make All The Compliances Before The

TDS, Ghaziabad; erred in law and on facts in levying interest u/s 220(2) of the ITA, 1961 amounting to Rs.18,200/-. 5. Appellant craves leave add / alter / modify / delete / amend all / any of the Grounds of Appeal.” 2. At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. No written submission was filed. Submission of ld.Departmental

RAVINDRA BHAUSAHEB MADHAVAI ,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1737/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

TDS. The assessee has not provided the details of these payments whether paid in cash or by cheque. Hence, the AO made addition of Rs.7,79,000/- being 10% on these payments u/so.40A(3) of the Act. 5 Ravindra Bhausaheb Madhavai 9. The AO also made addition of Rs.36,48,685/- on account of variation in the opening and closing

MR. YOGESH KULTHE,AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, PANVEL, DIST. RAIGAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.940/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS deduction etc.. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative placing reliance on the orders of the authorities submit that no interference by this Tribunal is called for 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the AO also completed the assessment u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. Further, we find that

ELECTRONICA FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2629/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Electronica Finance Limited, V The Dcit, “Audumber”, 101/1, S Circle-1(1), Pune. Erandwane, Dr.Ketkar Road, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aaace4577B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 19.12.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

TDS ought not to be taxed being compensatory in nature and not penal. The said interest has not been claimed as expenditure during the year 5. The Learned I-T authorities erred in law and on facts, by considering the gross amounts of the "EMIs" as reflected in Form 26AS. The Learned I-T authorities ought to have appreciated that

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(OSD), CRICLE -1, KOLHAPUR vs. RBL BANK LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS to Central Government account is not eligible for allowance as business expenditure, consequently, the deduction claimed by the assessee is liable to be denied. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in holding the same. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is justified and ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6. Ground

RBL BANK,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS to Central Government account is not eligible for allowance as business expenditure, consequently, the deduction claimed by the assessee is liable to be denied. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in holding the same. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is justified and ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6. Ground

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(OSD), CRICLE -1, KOLHAPUR vs. RBL BANK LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS to Central Government account is not eligible for allowance as business expenditure, consequently, the deduction claimed by the assessee is liable to be denied. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in holding the same. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is justified and ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6. Ground

DEMAG CRANES AND COMPONENTS GMBH,PUNE vs. ACIT(IT)CIRCLE 1, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1115/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

TDS thereon. In the evince thereof, the appellant was called upon file return for AY 2011-12. Consequently, the case of the appellant was reopened by service of notice u/s 148 of the Act and an assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was passed by assessing the total income of the appellant

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. EMCURE PHARMACEUTIALS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 251(1) of the Act. 3. Tersely stated, the factual position for the assessment year 2011-12 is that the assessee gave certain unsecured loans to its subsidiary company, namely, Emcure Pharmaceuticals, USA Inc. The Foreign company deducted tax at source on the amount of interest on loan credited to the assessee, which was eventually paid in a later

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. EMCURE PHARMACEUTIALS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 251(1) of the Act. 3. Tersely stated, the factual position for the assessment year 2011-12 is that the assessee gave certain unsecured loans to its subsidiary company, namely, Emcure Pharmaceuticals, USA Inc. The Foreign company deducted tax at source on the amount of interest on loan credited to the assessee, which was eventually paid in a later

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 PAN: AAATB4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 11-12-2025 Date of pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

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

251 have held that weighted deduction is\nto be allowed under section 35(2AB) of the Act after the establishment of facility.\nHowever, section does not mention any cutoff date or particular date for eligibility\nto claim deduction. The Hon'ble High Court held as under \"8 The Tribunal has\nconsidered the submissions made on behalf of the assessee

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

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

251 have held that weighted deduction is\nto be allowed under section 35(2AB) of the Act after the establishment of facility.\nHowever, section does not mention any cutoff date or particular date for eligibility\nto claim deduction. The Hon'ble High Court held as under \"8 The Tribunal has\nconsidered the submissions made on behalf of the assessee

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

251 have held that weighted deduction is\nto be allowed under section 35(2AB) of the Act after the establishment of facility.\nHowever, section does not mention any cutoff date or particular date for eligibility\nto claim deduction. The Hon'ble High Court held as under \"8 The Tribunal has\nconsidered the submissions made on behalf of the assessee