BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

93 results for “TDS”+ Section 40A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi539Mumbai479Chennai260Bangalore230Kolkata204Ahmedabad122Hyderabad105Pune93Jaipur85Visakhapatnam57Indore53Chandigarh46Raipur43Rajkot37Cuttack35Cochin25Surat22Amritsar18Lucknow18Nagpur14Guwahati14Patna13Jodhpur12Agra8Karnataka7Ranchi5Varanasi4Jabalpur4Dehradun4Allahabad3Calcutta3Panaji2Telangana1SC1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)64Section 4059Addition to Income40TDS38Section 12A36Disallowance35Section 10A28Section 26325Section 10(20)24Section 11

NATWARIA SHRILAL LASARIA,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1838/PUN/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Chaware
Section 244ASection 40A(2)(b)

TDS on the said payments and the applicability of provisions of section 40A(ia) of the Act are some of the reasons given by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that Shri Dheeraj Lasaria and Neeraj Lasaria did not file the return of income. There is also no definite discussion about applicability of provisions

PRABHAT DAIRY PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5

24
Deduction23
Section 40A(3)20
ITA 545/PUN/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.545/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Prabhat Dairy Pvt. Ltd., Ranjankhol, Tal: Shrirampur, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Ahmednagar …. Pan: Aaccp8872E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 2, Ahmednagar अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.N. Puranik प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Pankaj Garg सुनवाई की तारीख / घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01.08.2019 Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

TDS was deducted. The assessee pointed out that tax was deducted on final payment and not out of advance payment. In respect of genuinity of payments made to directors and family members, the assessee produced the crate registers and gave details of date-wise, destination-wise dispatches made by assessee. The assessee had only produced registers for the period April

AVINASH RAMKRISHNA SABNIS,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 154/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 154/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Avinash Ramkrishna Sabnis, Prop. N.R. Industries, 303, Gajilaxmi, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune-411016. Pan : Abzps0853K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-8, Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailaja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further noted that assessee had claimed labour charges in the name of M/s. Linex Industries amounting to Rs.19,03,668/- and in the name of M/s.Gaurav Auto Parts manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.13,65,898/-. Both concerns were sister concerns of the assessee. On further verification Assessing Officer noticed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD., (FORMERLY: BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LTD.,),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objections of assessee are dismissed

ITA 356/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.356/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar
Section 201Section 271C

7 CO No.121/PUN/2017 of the Act. The assessee had debited certain expenditure as provision under the following heads:- (i) Commission / Brokerage : ₹ 2,10,12,784 (ii) Rent : ₹ 1,92,561 (iii) Payment to contractors : ₹ 8,54,757 (iv) Fee for professional services : ₹ 1,44,747 ------------------- ₹ 2,22,04,849 ___________ 12. The assessee in the computation of income had added back

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. IGATE COMPUTER SYSTEM LTD.,, PUNE

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

ITA 299/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)Section 234C

7) rws 801A(10) when in fact the assessee has earned substantial excessive profits as discussed in Assessment Order. 5. The DRP has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance u/s FBT paid in Australia not treating it as income tax. 6. The Hon'ble DRP erred in allowing assessee's claim u/s 40a(i) in respect

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

ITA 74/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)Section 234C

7) rws 801A(10) when in fact the assessee has earned substantial excessive profits as discussed in Assessment Order. 5. The DRP has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance u/s FBT paid in Australia not treating it as income tax. 6. The Hon'ble DRP erred in allowing assessee's claim u/s 40a(i) in respect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. INDO ENTERPRISES,, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1221/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1221/Pun/2016 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu DasFor Respondent: Shri Rajan Vora &
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and deleted the addition. The reasoning given by the CIT(A), in our view, is on sound footing and, therefore, the same is sustainable. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue stands dismissed. 6. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue relates to addition of Rs.31,44,357/- on account of adhoc additions

SHABBIR HASHAM SAYYED,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

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

ITA 947/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.947/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shabbir Hasham Sayyed, New Ashiyana Enterprises, S.No.75/2, Room No.153, Sayyed Nagar, Hadapsar, Pune-411028. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Achps9564L बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-14(2), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Mrs. Shabana Parveen सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-7, Pune Dated 08.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 66,84,217/- By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Realizing The Fact That Appellant Is An Individual & This Was The First Year Of Applicability Of Provisions Of Section 44Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Therefore For A.Y. 2012 - 2013 No Tax Was Deductible Under Chapter Xvii B & Therefore Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Do Not Have Any Application In The Appellant’S Case.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Mrs. Shabana Parveen
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 3Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 44A

40A of the Act was also discussed in para 6.3 of the CIT(A)’s order. 7. Before us, on the issue of invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, ld. Counsel submitted that provisions of Explanation with reference to the meaning of ‘specified person’ is explained and accordingly, a person who makes a payment

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2986/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Adient India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Plot No.1, S No.235 & 245, Circle-1(1), Pune Hinjewadi, Tal-Mulshi, Pune - 411057 Pan : Aaact6342D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna Revenue By S/Shri Kalika Singh & Madhavan A.M. Krishnan Date Of Hearing 27-05-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31-05-2021 आदेश / Order Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27-10-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called ‗The Act‘) In Relation To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against Transfer Pricing Addition Of Rs.5,95,39,429. Succinctly, The Factual Matrix Of The Case Is That The Assessee Was Earlier A 50:50 Joint

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

TDS certificates, case laws on admissibility of input service tax credit to the assessee, advance tax template, differential custom duty and case law under relevant tax provisions. From the above cumulative details of all the services running into more than 450 pages, it is more than evident that TACO provided specific and also exclusive services under the Agreement

BHIKSHU MARGAM,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

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

ITA 2826/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2826/Pun/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bhikshu Margam, A3-102, Kohinoor Estate, Mula Road, Kirkee, Pune – 411 003. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aacfb9767B …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, …. ""यथ"/ Respondent Pune.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

40A(3), section 40(a)(ia) r.w. the TDS provisions of the Statute. The CIT(A) confirmed the said additions made by the Assessing Officer. However, I find the order made by the CIT(A) is without having presence of the assessee or its Authorized Representative. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

VIJAY VYANKATRAO MANE,SADASHIV PEATH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER , ADDL/JCIT(A)- CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 1845/PUN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

TDS compliance as per the provisions of section 40A(i)(a) of the Act and allow the claim of the assessee. There is nothing wrong in the above order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) directing the AO to allow the claim of the assessee subject to verification of the compliance of section 40A

M/S. BAFNA BUILDERS & LAND DEVELOPERS,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 185/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Bafna Builders & Jcit, Range - 1 Land Developers Jalgaon 425001 "Nayantara", Subhash Chowk Vs. Jalgaon 425001 Pan – Aadfb4627P Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sunil Ganoo Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.04.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2010-11 Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A) 2, Nashik Dated 13.01.2015 Passed In Case No. Nsk/Cit(A)-2/4713-14 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short “The Act”.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)

7. Next comes the unproved cash vouchers and purchase as well as transportation expenses disallowance of Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs.3,50,326/-; respectively, made on adhoc basis. The assessee’s sole plea before us is that the same be reduced to a reasonable disallowance of 5% only. The fact remains that the learned lower authorities have already taken

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

section 40A(7) in ITR in comparison to audit report,  Claim or large Refund,  Low income compared to large commission receipts,  Real estate business with high closing stock,  Large difference in the opening stock of current year,  High ratio of refund to TDS

HIGH SEAS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1931/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V. GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

7. Both sides are heard on this limited issue of invoking provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. I find, it is an undisputed fact that payments were made through banking channels to the Directors after deducting TDS

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

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

ITA 565/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41Section 80J

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

M/S. ABL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2501/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 2501/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Mrs. Shweta Mishra
Section 40

7. Examining the matter, we find that there are two angles to the matter: The first is, whether it was a case of `no deduction’ or not in the present case. The answer would be in the negative because, the deduction was already made at the rate of 1%. The second angle would be as to whether it was under

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1046/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143(3)Section 194

TDS was when the income was by way of rent; Explanation under the said section defines ‘rent’. 9 Referring to the facts of the case, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee stated that there was no lease, sub-lease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement between the assessee and the Board, for the use of land/water. He further

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2148/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143(3)Section 194

TDS was when the income was by way of rent; Explanation under the said section defines ‘rent’. 9 Referring to the facts of the case, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee stated that there was no lease, sub-lease, tenancy or any other agreement or arrangement between the assessee and the Board, for the use of land/water. He further

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE vs. SHRADDHA & PRASAD JOINT VENTURE,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2665/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2665/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 194CSection 40

TDS on the work allocated to its constituent, the entire amount paid to M/s. Shraddha Energy & Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.37,05,95,378/- was disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) on this issue at Para 5.3 of his order observed that the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case

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

ITA 2375/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

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