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

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

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

EPRSS PREPAID RECHARGE SERVICES INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.828/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Eprss Prepaid Recharge Services India P. Ltd., 207, Kpct Commercial Complex, Fatima Nagar, Wanowrie, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411013 …. Pan:Aabce5025H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward – 1(4), Pune

251 ITR 0053 (Mad). The case of Revenue authorities is that due to amendment in the year 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1976, under which Explanation 5 has been inserted under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, the payments made by assessee were in the nature of royalty and hence, the assessee was liable to deduct withholding

EPRSS PREPAID RECHARGE SERVICES INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.828/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Eprss Prepaid Recharge Services India P. Ltd., 207, Kpct Commercial Complex, Fatima Nagar, Wanowrie, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411013 …. Pan:Aabce5025H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward – 1(4), Pune

251 ITR 0053 (Mad). The case of Revenue authorities is that due to amendment in the year 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1976, under which Explanation 5 has been inserted under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act, the payments made by assessee were in the nature of royalty and hence, the assessee was liable to deduct withholding

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

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

2 explanation for the source of cash deposits made. In response, the assessee submitted the explanation stating that he along with others sold property situated at Mauje Devlali, Nashik, received sale consideration of Rs.4,07,000/- through bearer cheque which was encashed and deposited in the ICICI bank. He also stated that assesse’s mother-in-law was co-owner

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

2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee calling for information. There was no compliance from the side of assessee to such notices. However, in response to notice u/s.142(1) dated 20.10.2014 and 19.11.2015, the assessee submitted his written submissions. Based on the written submissions, the Assessing Officer observed that in the Audit Report it was stated 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

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

251 on goodwill arising pursuant to the scheme of\namalgamation of YAPL and ADEPL with the Appellant.\n1.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nHon'ble NFAC has erred in concluding that the depreciation on\ngoodwill as a result of amalgamation is not allowable in light of sixth\nproviso to Section

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

TDS was required to be deducted on payments made for purchase of software. This aspect has not been examined by the Authorities below. 5. On the other hand, Shri Achal Sharma representing the Department vehemently supported the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. DR submitted that the CBDT Circular referred to by the assessee before the Commissioner

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

TDS was required to be deducted on payments made for purchase of software. This aspect has not been examined by the Authorities below. 5. On the other hand, Shri Achal Sharma representing the Department vehemently supported the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. DR submitted that the CBDT Circular referred to by the assessee before the Commissioner

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

TDS was required to be deducted on payments made for purchase of software. This aspect has not been examined by the Authorities below. 5. On the other hand, Shri Achal Sharma representing the Department vehemently supported the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. DR submitted that the CBDT Circular referred to by the assessee before the Commissioner

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

TDS was required to be deducted on payments made for purchase of software. This aspect has not been examined by the Authorities below. 5. On the other hand, Shri Achal Sharma representing the Department vehemently supported the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. DR submitted that the CBDT Circular referred to by the assessee before the Commissioner

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

CUMMINS INDIA LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

TDS claim in original return. The assessee had entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises, for which the Assessing Officer made reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA(1) of the Act to determine the arm's length price of international transactions. The TPO in order passed under section 92CA(3) of the Act proposed

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

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