DINESH DATTATRAY SHINDE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1, KOLHAUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

TDS) [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78. 6. In this case, Late Fee under section 234E has been levied for F.Y.2013-14. The chart submitted by ld.AR is reproduced as under: FY Quarter Return Date of Late Filing Filed on 200A order levy 2013-14 Q2 20-Sep-14 25-Sep-14 47

DINESH DATTATRAY SHINDE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2285, 2286 & 2287/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15(Q3, Q2 & Q4) Dinesh Dattatray Shinde, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 1756, Jutica, Teli Ali, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ratnagiri – 415612. Pan: Klpdo1360C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Bipin Shaha(Virtual) & Shri Rohit Rajeev Shah Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Threeappeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15- Q3, Q2 & Q4 Respectively, All Dated 28.07.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal For A.Y.2014-

TDS) [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78. 6. In this case, Late Fee under section 234E has been levied for F.Y.2013-14. The chart submitted by ld.AR is reproduced as under: FY Quarter Return Date of Late Filing Filed on 200A order levy 2013-14 Q2 20-Sep-14 25-Sep-14 47

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, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. ANSYS SOFTWARE PVT.LTD,, BENGALURU

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. 664/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Ansys Software Pvt. Ltd. Kabra Excelsior, 3Rd Floor, #6A, 7Th Main, 1St Block, Kormangala, Bengaluru-560 034 Pan : Aadca1658E ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Divya Bajpai Assessee By : Shri V. Narendra Sharma

47 wherein it was held the amendment to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2010 will operate retrospectively with effect from 01.04.2005. As per the aforesaid amendment, tax deducted at source, if it is paid on or before the due date for filing return of income, then no disallowance u/s.40

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

TDS certificates / 15G forms for verification. The assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The invocation of 6 CO No.43/PUN/2025 provisions of section 115BBE of the Act was also challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 8. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee

SHIVDAS VENKAT GOMARE HUF,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

TDS under Section 194A of the Act amounting to Rs. 47,80,422/- (Rupees Forty-Seven Lakh Eighty Thousand Four

CHANDRAKANT VITHTHAL BHOPI,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 1 , PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

TDS has been deducted under the PAN of the assessee Shri Chandrakant Vithal Bhopi under section 184A which represents interest other than Interest on securities. The assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence and confirmation from the other members/co-owners about receipt of payment to the extent of their share of compensation/enhanced compensation or the receipt of Interest payment. During

NANASAHEB BHAGAWAN SASAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

47,210/-. During the AY 2022-23, the assessee sold his ancestral land jointly held by him and his son, Mr. Amit Sasar for a total consideration of Rs.13,00,00,000/-. The said consideration was received by the assessee and his son in equal ratio i.e. Rs.6,50,00,000/- each. The buyer of the said land deducted

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

TDS while making payment. Referring to the notice dated 31.03.2017 u/s 148 of the Act and a copy of reason recorded by the Ld. AO provided to the assessee vide letter dated 29.05.2017 (pages 1, 2 and 3 of the paper book refers), the Ld. AR submitted that the above stated reason was the solitary reason on the basis

KALPANA VIJAY KADAM,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.841/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kalpana Vijay Kadam, V The Income Tax Officer, Fi 13, Janki Heights, S.No.250, S. Ward-2(2), Pune. Baner D P Road, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Axzpk4350P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P. Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Manish Mehta – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 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)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 06.02.2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Affording A Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant. The Order Was Solely Based On The Observations Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) In The

47,500/- which is less than Rs.50 lakhs, therefore, reopening of assessment for A.Y.2016-17 after a lapse of three years, is bad in law. Ld.AR pleaded that Assessment Order may be quashed. Even otherwise on merits, Assessee had obtained loan and documents were submitted during assessment proceedings, hence there is no escapement of income. Ld.AR took us through the paper

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

TDS credit of YAPL and ADEPL amounting to\nINR 18,88,630 and INR 7,74,946 respectively to the Appellant.\n3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is a company\nincorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 24.01.2012. It is a\nsubsidiary of Relex Holdings Netherlands B.V. and is primarily engaged in\nthe business of automation products

M/S KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2021-22

47,730/-. The assessee had opted for taxation u/s 115BAA of the Act which was accepted by the CPC in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee filed the rectification application u/s 154 of the Act on account of short grant of TDS. However, the CPC instead of granting any benefit for short deduction of TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

TDS provisions. As regards, the claim for allowance as revenue expenditure on product development expenditure of Rs.4,19,75,171/-, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the same following the Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

47 deal with disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in the context of commission exceeding Re. 18.00 crore paid by the Assessee during the relevant assessment year, even though the TDS

TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

TDS‟) amounting to INR 2,47,666. Ground No.7: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. FORCE MOTORS LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1192/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05

Section 195 of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance of the expenditure u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act is not permissible and addition was deleted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). 28. We observe that one of the important criteria in the DTAA agreement is number of days of stay in India for each of these technical consultants and this fact

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

TDS on payments to the specified persons referred to section 13(3) of the Act, etc. Thus, a perusal of various details furnished by the assessee clearly shows that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has passed the assessment order after a detailed scrutiny with multiple pointed queries on the very same payments to the specified persons. Further

SUHAS JAGANNATH KANASE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

TDS u/s 192A of the IT Act of Rs.11,47,224/- was deducted. In response to statutory notices, it was submitted by the assessee that he resigned in financial year 2017-18 and the company paid him voluntarily ex-gratia of Rs.42,15,561/- which is not taxable. After considering this reply and not being satisfied with the same

DURGA MACHTECH PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1, PUNE

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

TDS calculated late fees u/s 234E of the IT Act of Rs. 47,760/- for Q2 of A.Y. 2013-14. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act for correction in the above intimation u/s 200A of the IT Act for which the correction order was passed on 20.04.2024. 6. Being aggrieved with