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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

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

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

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

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.

40a(ia). In view of this fact it is most humbly prayed before your honor to delete the entire addition and oblige.” 8. From the above, it is evident that there is undisputed fact that turnover of the assessee in the immediately assessment year 2011-12 is within the prescribed limits of section 44AB of the Act. The amount

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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"

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

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

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

9. As explained the general entries passed by Pfizer Ltd, in the books of account are as under: “Annexure-1 Journal Entries passed by Pfizer in the books of account: a) At the time of making the year end provision Particulars Debit (`.) Credit(`.) Expense a/c Dr. XXX To provision for expenses a/c XXX b) At the time of reversal

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

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”.

9. The assessee’s 5th substantive ground seeking to delete Section 40A(3) disallowance of Rs.8,97,389/- made in the lower proceedings has not been pressed before us. Rejected accordingly. 10. Next comes assessee’s 6th substantive ground seeking to reverse Section 36(i)(iii) interest disallowance of Rs.49,43,223/- made in both the lower proceedings. Learned

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

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

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

9. So far as, the second ground is concerned, we find the assessee has challenged the merit of the addition. We find the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has directed the AO to verify the TDS compliance as per the provisions of section 40A

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

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

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

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

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

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-7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. HEMANT BAGAREDDY MOTADOO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS on payment of security charges amounting to Rs.1,15,275/- paid to M/s. Shani Security & Allied Services. We find the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as they stood at the relevant time read as under: “Amounts not deductible. 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections 30 to 38, the following amounts shall

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

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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.

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

INDO ENTERPRISE PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

40A(2) of the Act where the assessee incurred any expenditure in respect of which payments has been made any person referred to in clause (b) of this sub section and the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which

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

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3),, PUNE vs. SUBHASH & B.T. PATIL & SONS & N.V.KHAROTE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

TDS of Rs. 59,58,556/- in its return of income on total contract receipts, however no income was offered for taxation for the year under consideration. The decisions of Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 have not been accepted by the department and appeals have been filed before the Tribunal

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -6 (3), PUNE vs. SUBHASH AND B.T. PATIL & SONS AND N.V. KHAROTE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

TDS u/s 194C of the Act. Since the assessee had failed to deduct tax from such payments u/s 194C of the Act, provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable. He accordingly held that on the failure of deduction of tax, the payment made of Rs.28,61,50,769/- was required to be disallowed

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. SHRADDHA & PRASAD JV KHURA VARODA,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 35/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

TDS u/s. 194C of the Act in respect of payments made by assessee joint venture to its members. We find that identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in immediately preceding assessment year. The Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under : “10. We have heard the rival submissions