JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

vii) of the Act and also within meaning of Article 12 of DTAA between India and USA. The Assessing Officer thus, invoked provisions of section 195 of the Act for payment of license fees and held that the assessee was bound to deduct taxes before remitting the money to non-resident and by not deducting or withholding taxes, the assessee

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

vii) of the Act and also within meaning of Article 12 of DTAA between India and USA. The Assessing Officer thus, invoked provisions of section 195 of the Act for payment of license fees and held that the assessee was bound to deduct taxes before remitting the money to non-resident and by not deducting or withholding taxes, the assessee

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

vii) of the Act and also within meaning of Article 12 of DTAA between India and USA. The Assessing Officer thus, invoked provisions of section 195 of the Act for payment of license fees and held that the assessee was bound to deduct taxes before remitting the money to non-resident and by not deducting or withholding taxes, the assessee

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

vii) of the Act and also within meaning of Article 12 of DTAA between India and USA. The Assessing Officer thus, invoked provisions of section 195 of the Act for payment of license fees and held that the assessee was bound to deduct taxes before remitting the money to non-resident and by not deducting or withholding taxes, the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal also subsumed into the material supplied by the Vendors of Taiwan. T & D services were auxialliary / incidental / connected to such sale, and hence, do not qualify for being part of section 9(1)(vii) of ITA, 1961. 4 Ground

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal also subsumed into the material supplied by the Vendors of Taiwan. T & D services were auxialliary / incidental / connected to such sale, and hence, do not qualify for being part of section 9(1)(vii) of ITA, 1961. 4 Ground

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal also subsumed into the material supplied by the Vendors of Taiwan. T & D services were auxialliary / incidental / connected to such sale, and hence, do not qualify for being part of section 9(1)(vii) of ITA, 1961. 4 Ground

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal also subsumed into the material supplied by the Vendors of Taiwan. T & D services were auxialliary / incidental / connected to such sale, and hence, do not qualify for being part of section 9(1)(vii) of ITA, 1961. 4 Ground

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal also subsumed into the material supplied by the Vendors of Taiwan. T & D services were auxialliary / incidental / connected to such sale, and hence, do not qualify for being part of section 9(1)(vii) of ITA, 1961. 4 Ground

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year and it fulfills the conditions stipulated in sub section (2) of sub-section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year and it fulfills the conditions stipulated in sub section (2) of sub-section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year and it fulfills the conditions stipulated in sub section (2) of sub-section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year and it fulfills the conditions stipulated in sub section (2) of sub-section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year and it fulfills the conditions stipulated in sub section (2) of sub-section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed

FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year and it fulfills the conditions stipulated in sub section (2) of sub-section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year and it fulfills the conditions stipulated in sub section (2) of sub-section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. FINOLEX PLASSON INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

1)(vii) of the Act, if it is written off as irrecoverable in the books of accounts of the assessee for that previous year and it fulfills the conditions stipulated in sub section (2) of sub-section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed

COL R D NIKAM SAINIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE,, SATARA

The appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.794/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Col R D Nikam Sainiksahakari The Asst. Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Satara Circle, Chh. Shivaji Maharaj Circle, Satara. Powai Naka, Satara – 415001. Pan: Aabas 2355 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Renuka Ghatge – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Isdirected Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune Dated 28.02.2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Form Number 36 Of Appeal Memo: “1. The Learned Assessing Office Is Not Justified In Adding The Liabilities & Capital Receipts Credited To General Reserve Totaling To Rs.6,73,807/- To The Total Income & Addition Should Be Deleted.

section 36(1)(vii) . Therefore, respectfully following the decision of ITAT Chennai(supra) we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.12,48,358/-. Accordingly, assessee’s Ground Number 3.3 is allowed. Ground Number 3.5: 10. The AO has added the difference between interest offered by assessee and the amount reflected in 26AS. The assessee claimed that assessee

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Bajaj Finance Limited Pcit-3, Pune 3Rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Vs. Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aabcb1518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026

TDS in Revised Return iii. High Creditors/liabilities iv. Reduction of Income in Revised Return & Claim of Refund v. Refund Claim vi. Unsecured Loans vii. Expenses Incurred for Earning Exempt Income viii. Taxability of business liability written off u/s 41 or any other section ix. Foreign Outward Remittance x. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xi. Deduction from Total Income under