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”.

TDS being not deducted on such payments, the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act are attracted and accordingly

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

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-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 the payment of security charges to M/s. Shani Security & Allied Services, the Assessing Officer disallowed further amount of Rs.1,15,275/-. 4. The Assessing Officer similarly made addition of Rs.26,38,500/- by invoking the provisions of section 40A

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

AGASTI SHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

TDS. He prayed to remand the issue to the file of AO for verification, as to whether the payee recognized the receipt from assessee as income in its income or not and placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd. reported in 377 ITR 635 (Delhi

SHIVAJI JAGANNATH BHOSALE,BARAMATI vs. ITO WARD-5(4), PUNE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1873/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 Mr.Shivaji Jagannath Bhosale, The Income Tax Officer, Shrinath Transport Company, Vs Ward-5(4), Pune. Near Dynamix Dairy, Baramati-Bhigwan Ropad, Baramati, Pune – 413133 Pan: Abgpb 8933 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandhbhor – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune, Dated 20.09.2019For The A.Y. 2003-04. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 25,00,000/- In Respect Of Transportation Charges. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Failed To Consider The Fact That Transport Charges Paid By The Appellant Have Not Been Doubted In Assessments Of Any Of The Subsequent Years & Therefore Following The Principle Of Consistency No Addition On Adhoc Basis Can Be Made On The Same Ground In A. Y. 2003-04. Mr.Shivaji Jagannath Bhosale (A)

TDS is not deducted from the payments made to truck owners.” If this is the reason for not deducting tax at source in respect of the transport deployed from outside, then how the assessee is maintaining Truck Numberwise list of sundry creditors in which the amount as low as Rs. 68/- due from the creditors has been recorded. The list

TOKAI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,HINGOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(1), JALNA, JALNA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.571/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Tokai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1, Jalna. Villag Kurunda, Taluka Basmath . District, Hingoli – 431512. Pan: Aaat6997Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anand Partani – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2024

40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for non-deduction of TDS u s 194A(1). The provisions of 194A(1) are not applicable on interest paid to banks and therefore the disallowance is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 6. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred

LOKMANGAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.522/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Lokmangal Co-Operative Bank Ltd., 128, Murarji Peth, Near Seva Sadan High School, Solapur – 413 001 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaaal0119J

section 194(1) r.w.s. 40a(ia) disallowance of Rs.3,49,386/- on account of non- deduction of TDS on interest

ACIT,CIRCLE-1,SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. YUVRAJ PATIL AND COMPANY, TALSANGI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2023-24 Acit, Circle – 1, Yuvraj Patil & Company Solapur Vs. Talsangi, Mangalwedha, Solapur – 413305 Pan: Aaafy4589Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Shah Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-03-2026

40a(ia) without giving opportunity to the AO to examine the 4 additional evidences and provide a rebuttal on the same as mandated by rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules 1962. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in disregarding the factual matrix of the case while

SABLE YASHWANT LAXMAN,,KHOPOLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

section 40A(3) disallowance of Rs.21,17,033/-, is found to be without any merit in the light of the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in paragraph 6.1 that no such issue had arisen from the assessment order dated 25-03-2015. Rejected accordingly. 4. The very factual position continues for assessee’s third substantive ground regarding short credit

M/S. ORGANICA,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK -1, NASHIK

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

TDS on the balance amount of payments and nothing is on record to show that Ld. AO had made verification as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act. Accordingly the assessment order dated 11.09.2017 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act was held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the same was set aside

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

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

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

SKYWARDS KANAKRAJ DEVELOPER ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Skywards Kanakraj Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Pune. Developer, Office No.704, Vb Capital, Range Hills Road, Opp. Symphony Restaurant Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411007. Pan : Acafs3003P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.03.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Erred In Not Deciding The Issue On The Merits Of The Case, This Action Is Being Violative Of Principal Of Natural Justice. Your Appellant Prays For Granting Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities.

TDS by disregarding a factual submission made by assesses therefore, entire disallowance is incorrect and needs to be struck down. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2016900 being Addition under section 40a

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 40A(3) of the Act and unsecured loans taken from Akash Foods and Feeds for which Assessing Officer was satisfied with the reply filed by the assessee and re- assessment proceedings were concluded after making addition u/s.68 of the Act at ₹83,56,232 and disallowed u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act at ₹1,36,378. Assessed income

NIPRO INDIA CORPORATION P LTD ,SATARA vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

40A(2)(b) of the Act. In reply to the said notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, the assessee explained, vide submissions dated 05-01-2017, 08-05-2017, 10-07-2017, 02-08-2017 and 04-09-2017 which are placed at pages 533 to 546 of the paper Book-II. We find the details of rent expenses