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

36(1)(va) of the IT Act the business profit of the assessee has increased. In this regard, it was the contention of the assessee that CBDT has issued Circular No.37/2016 dated 02.11.2016 which allows the benefit of deduction under Chapter VIA on enhanced profit. The relevant circular is reproduced below :- “CIRCULAR NO. 37/2016 F.No.279/Misc./140/2015/ITJ Government of India

GALLAGHER SERVICE CENTER LLP,PUNE vs. THE 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 : 2020-21 Gallagher Service Center Llp, Acit , Pune 401, A,B,C,D,E,F & G, Delta 2, Gigaspace Complex, Viman Vs. Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aaqfg7417F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None 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 :

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds of appeal on or before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal according

MONK AUTOMATION P LTD,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CPC,, BENGALURU

The appeal of the appellant is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 163/Pun/2022 Monk Automation Pvt. Ltd. L-19, Nr Galxo, Midc, Ambad, Nasik-422010 Pan:Aabcm9042N . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant

36(1)(va) of the Act for sum of ₹11,96,832/- for the reason that the amount received by the assessee-employer from its employees as contribution either towards the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) or Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) etc., [for short “the relevant funds”] was not credited to the employees accounts on or on or before

M/S. R R KAPOOR COMPANY,AHMEDNAGAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 5. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee reads as under : “2. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

section 36(1)(va) of the Act.\nSubsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the following\nreasons:\n“1.\nDeemed International Transactions\n2.\nLarge value of international transactions\n3.\nTransactions with Company whose Registration has been Cancelled by\nMCA\n4.\nDuty Drawback\n5.\nLower amount disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in ITR (Part A-OI) in comparison

FCA INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED (SURVIVING ENTITY AFTER THE MERGER OF PCA MOTORS PVT LTD),PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) and section 37 of the Act (i.e. disallowed twice) even though the Appellant had already considered the same as disallowance in its return of income. 3. Restriction of deduction under section 10AA of the Act to INR 73,822,670. 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble NFAC

ADITYA SHANKAR CHOUDHARI,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Aditya Shankar Vs Ito Ward Choudhari, 10(1), Akurdi, House No. 125/2, Hill Pune Range, Phase 4, Deolali Camp-422401 Maharashtra Pan-Afopc0286M Appellant Respondent

section 35(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the fact that of the Act. u/s 43B of the Act 2. The CPC ought not to have made the addition of Rs 1,103/-, being any sum payable by way of contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date of respective statutes, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction from the total income. Therefore, in our opinion, essential condition for claiming such deduction if such amounts are deposited on or before due date

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

TDS has been deducted on these consultancy charges. It has been specifically mentioned by the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A) that almost entire receipts of the Assessee are from Garware Technical Fibers Limited. The Assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs.5 lakhs as consultancy charges paid to SHAILJA ROOPCHAND. Though apparently, it is highly unlikely that a person doing consultancy

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. VAISHNAVI SATISH BANKAR, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

TDS has been deducted on these consultancy charges. It has been specifically mentioned by the Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A) that almost entire receipts of the Assessee are from Garware Technical Fibers Limited. The Assessee has claimed expenditure of Rs.5 lakhs as consultancy charges paid to SHAILJA ROOPCHAND. Though apparently, it is highly unlikely that a person doing consultancy

FRANCOIS COMPRESSOR INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2504/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ………. अपीलाथ" / Francois Compressor India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.147/1(New), Lavale Road, Appellant Pirangut, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune – 412115. Pan : Aabcf0496K. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (2), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah. Revenue By : Shri Amol Kamat. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dt.31.08.2017 Passed Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under : The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Sale

36(1)(va) of the Act at Rs.15,243/- 3. After receipt of the draft assessment order, the appellant had filed objections before the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter referred as “the D.R.P.”) seeking correction in computation of operating profit of the assessee by including the “Changes in inventory” of Rs.3,31,30,815/- and as well as correction

KANKARIYA AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO WARD-1, AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act and disallowance of interest of Rs.2,554/- u/s 201(1A) of the Act. Subsequently the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs.4,92,606/- being VAT tax interest. According to the Assessing Officer, the same is not an allowable expenditure and therefore, he reopened