PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 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 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order of imposing or enhancing penalty under sub-section (1A) of section 275; (k) an order of assessment made

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 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 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order of imposing or enhancing penalty under sub-section (1A) of section 275; (k) an order of assessment made

DIRECTOR, VJNT OBC & SBC WELFARE, MS, PUNE,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.906/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 272A(2)(k) / 274 r.w.s. 200(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2 Director, VJNT OBC & SBC Welfare 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned A.O. has erred in levying the penalty of Rs.53,200/- u/s 272

KUDALE AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-14, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

TDS. The relevant findings and observations of the Tribunal are as under : “7. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. We find that the Mumbai Bench Á’ of the Tribunal in the case of Karwat Steel Traders vs ITO, 145 ITD 370 (Mum) has held as under: “The amount cannot

M/S. MANGESH TRADERS,,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (APPEALS) -1,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed

section 272(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) penalty of Rs.1,05,900/- on account of its failure to file the necessary information of TDS/TCS compliance, we note with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that it had been proceeded ex-parte in the lower appellate proceedings as evident in the CIT(A)’s order despite the fact that

JOHN DEERE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., Acit , Pune Tower.No.14, Magarpatta City, Cyber City, Vs. Hadapsar,I.E.S.O., Pune – 411013 Pan: Aaacj4233B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 16-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp :

272/- paid by the assessee. It was submitted that in respect of the dividend declared by it, the dividend distribution tax has been paid @ 20.36% as against the rate of 10% provided in the DTAA between India and Singapore and therefore the said rate as per the DTAA should be applied for the payment of dividend distribution

M/S. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD,,NANDED vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS RANGE ,, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2974/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. State Bank Of Vs. Joint Cit, Tds Range, Hyderabad, Nashik. At Shrinagar, Nanded- 431602. Tan : Nskso8336G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad Dated 23.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Honorable Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.2,11,100/- U/S 272(A)2(K) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty May Please Be Cancelled. 2. Appellant Prays For Just & Equitable Relief. 3. Appellant Prays To Add, Alter, Amend And/Or Withdraw The Ground/S During The Proceedings.”

272(A)2(K) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty may please be cancelled. 2. Appellant prays for just and equitable relief. 3. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw the Ground/s during the Proceedings.” 2 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is a Branch of Public Sector Bank. The Joint Commissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

TDS provisions. As regards, the claim for allowance as revenue expenditure on product development expenditure of Rs.4,19,75,171/-, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the same following the Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. IAC INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS liability borne by the assessee, keeping in view the provisions of section 195A of the Act. 5.3 Referring to the Ld. TPO‟s findings and observations in para 8.6 of the TP order as regards the receipt of services by the assessee from IAC Shanghai, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has failed to prove with sufficient

D.R.K. CONSTRUCTION,,SATARA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

272(2)(k) / 274 r.w.s. 200(3) of the Act of delay in filing of e-TDS return for 1st quarter of F.Y. 2010-11. We find that before Ld.CIT(A) assessee has made submissions to the effect that he was under bonafide belief that assessee was not required to deduct TDS but later on by way of abundant caution

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MUKUND JAISHANKAR DHARIYA,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.330/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

section 2(22)(e) of the Act should not be invoked. 15. Appreciating the above facts, CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee. Aggrieved with the same, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 16. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the facts relating to application to Govt. authorities for conversion of agricultural

MUKUND DHARIYA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.330/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

section 2(22)(e) of the Act should not be invoked. 15. Appreciating the above facts, CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee. Aggrieved with the same, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 16. During the proceedings before the Tribunal, Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that the facts relating to application to Govt. authorities for conversion of agricultural

NIHILENT LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT-2, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

272 ITR 309(ALL)] and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd.((2003) 260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court

NIHILENT LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

272 ITR 309(ALL)] and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd.((2003) 260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court

SANDVIK ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.62/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sandvik Asia Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-Pune Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dapodi, Pune – 411012 …. Pan: Aaccs6638K Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation)-Ii, Pune

TDS not deducted and paid by SAPL. 3 51/PUN/2014 The above IT Support payments have been erroneously held to be in the nature of Royalty/ Fees for Technical Services ('FTS') as defined under section 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Act respectively and as per the relevant article of the respective tax treaties, by the Ld.CIT

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

TDS is not permissible. 8.5. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the proposed addition of Rs.1,61,03,794/- u/s.40(a)(ia).” 39. After hearing the submissions of the Ld. DR and going through the findings of the Ld. DRP, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same and relief provided to the assessee is hereby

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

TDS is not permissible. 8.5. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the proposed addition of Rs.1,61,03,794/- u/s.40(a)(ia).” 39. After hearing the submissions of the Ld. DR and going through the findings of the Ld. DRP, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same and relief provided to the assessee is hereby

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

272 ITR 309(ALL)] and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd.((2003) (260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5,SANGLI., SANGLI. vs. SHREE GANESH NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT, ASHTA,, ASHTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2375/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent C. O. No.49/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2375/Pun/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Ganesh Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act would quality for deduction under section 80-18 of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: 7 C.O. No.49/PUN/2025 • Income