UPPAL SHAH PROP-J K SUGARS,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

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

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax unpaid sundry creditors u/s 41(1) in respect of M/s Arpit Enterprises of Rs.16,14,500/- and in respect of M/s. V.S.N. Trading Co. of Rs.12,35,500/-. The factual background of the above additions is as under : During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under

HEMANT ENTERPRISES,NASHIK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

41,125/-, which was subsequently revised on 2 ITA.No.394/PUN/2025 (Hemant Enterprises) 16/01/2020. Return was processed by the Central Processing Centre (“CPC”)/Assessing Officer (“AO”)) u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) vide intimation order, dated 10/07/2020 wherein TDS credit of ₹ 27,14,806/- claimed by the assessee was not given and also interest u/s. 234A

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS cannot substitute for the requirement of proving actual services rendered. Therefore, the appellant's explanation cannot be accepted as bona fide, and the disallowance represents income in respect of which inaccurate particulars were furnished. 5.5.3 The contention regarding tax neutrality is also without merit. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is linked to the act of furnishing inaccurate particulars

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS cannot substitute for the requirement of proving actual services rendered. Therefore, the appellant's explanation cannot be accepted as bona fide, and the disallowance represents income in respect of which inaccurate particulars were furnished. 5.5.3 The contention regarding tax neutrality is also without merit. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is linked to the act of furnishing inaccurate particulars

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1, PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS cannot substitute for the requirement of proving actual services rendered. Therefore, the appellant's explanation cannot be accepted as bona fide, and the disallowance represents income in respect of which inaccurate particulars were furnished. 5.5.3 The contention regarding tax neutrality is also without merit. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is linked to the act of furnishing inaccurate particulars

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS cannot substitute for the requirement of proving actual services rendered. Therefore, the appellant's explanation cannot be accepted as bona fide, and the disallowance represents income in respect of which inaccurate particulars were furnished. 5.5.3 The contention regarding tax neutrality is also without merit. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is linked to the act of furnishing inaccurate particulars

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

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

section 40(a)(ia). He\nfurther submitted that from the books of account of the asssessee it was established\nthat these were actual expenses incurred during AY 2017-18 and not the\n\"provisions for expenses” on which TDS was not deducted. He submitted that the\nassessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence that TDS was deducted during\nthe assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

TDS was to be deducted. The Assessing Officer passed final assessment order, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard pointed out that the Assessing Officer has compared the OP/OC i.e. margins of assessee at 150.55% with the margins of comparable companies at 27.72%, to come

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

TDS was to be deducted. The Assessing Officer passed final assessment order, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard pointed out that the Assessing Officer has compared the OP/OC i.e. margins of assessee at 150.55% with the margins of comparable companies at 27.72%, to come

M/S KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

TDS obligation. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Beacon Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) read as under: “6. As stated earlier, the issue that arises for consideration is whether the amount debited in the P&L account of the appellant company under the head 'indirect expenses' being excess payments refunded is interest

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

TDS was to be deducted. The Assessing Officer passed final assessment order, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard pointed out that the Assessing Officer has compared the OP/OC i.e. margins of assessee at 150.55% with the margins of comparable companies at 27.72%, to come

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

TDS was to be deducted. The Assessing Officer passed final assessment order, against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard pointed out that the Assessing Officer has compared the OP/OC i.e. margins of assessee at 150.55% with the margins of comparable companies at 27.72%, to come

K D CHOUDHARI,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.328/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 K. D. Choudhari, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. Office No.36, 37, 38, Krushi Udog Bhavan, Gultekdi, Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Market Yard, Pune- 411037. Pan : Aanfk0084B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 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 An Order U/S 250 Dated 19/12/2024, By Observing That Appellant Has Not Responded To Notices Issued In Appellate Proceedings, Thereby Completely Ignoring The Detailed Submissions Made In Response To Last Three Notices, That To On Or Before Due Date Mentioned, Such Casual Approach In The Appellate Proceeding Is Unacceptable Because, Ld. Cit(A) Ought

41,756 under section 40(a)(ia) by considering that under salary head TDS in respect of Rs 51,39.188 is not deducted

SUNIL GAGANDAS ROHIRA,BHUSAWAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

TDS (supra) and vide para 15, order dated 21.12.2017 it was held as under:- “15. Further, before parting, we may also refer to the order of the CIT(A) in these two appeals. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee being delayed for a period of two and half years. The CIT(A) had taken the date

SRI SRI DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICEER (TDS-3),, PUNE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

TDS (supra) and vide para 15, order dated 21.12.2017 it was held as under:- “15. Further, before parting, we may also refer to the order of the CIT(A) in these two appeals. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee being delayed for a period of two and half years. The CIT(A) had taken the date

SRI SRI DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICEER (TDS-3),, PUNE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

TDS (supra) and vide para 15, order dated 21.12.2017 it was held as under:- “15. Further, before parting, we may also refer to the order of the CIT(A) in these two appeals. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee being delayed for a period of two and half years. The CIT(A) had taken the date

ARTIS INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS, CPC, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

TDS (supra) and vide para 15, order dated 21.12.2017 it was held as under:- “15. Further, before parting, we may also refer to the order of the CIT(A) in these two appeals. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee being delayed for a period of two and half years. The CIT(A) had taken the date

ARTIS INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS, CPC, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

TDS (supra) and vide para 15, order dated 21.12.2017 it was held as under:- “15. Further, before parting, we may also refer to the order of the CIT(A) in these two appeals. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee being delayed for a period of two and half years. The CIT(A) had taken the date