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

57(iv) gives benefit of 50% deduction on amounts mentioned in Sec 56(2)(viii). Interest on compensation or enhanced compensation is the amount mentioned in Section 56(2)(viii). Therefore, in accordance with the above, 50% of Rs.2,60,05,088 amounting to Rs.1,30,02,544/- is treated as deduction and the balance amount of Rs.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ZEAL INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

TDS on interest of Rs.4,69,57,184/- by holding the amendment to Sec.40(a)(ia) from 01.04.2013 as retrospective in nature. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding the second proviso to section

VINEET TIWARI,BANGALORE vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS Form 63,57,095/- 24Q, Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against

VINEET TIWARI,BENGALURU vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS Form 63,57,095/- 24Q, Section 192) AIR-002 Credit Card bills Paid Rs.2,00,000 or more 8,51,621/- against

M/S. T - 3 ENERGY SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.826/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. T-3 Energy Services India Pvt. Ltd., D-Ii/65-1, Midc, Telco Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Chinchwad, Pune – 411019 …. Pan: Aacct9805F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune

TDS provisions would be attracted. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below. In respect of reimbursement of expenses, the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue stressed that where associated enterprise had not provided any services then, it could not be a case of reimbursement of expenses. The services were provided by Qwest

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

TDS) was cumbersome and involves a lot of paper work and collection from the company would be much easier. (ii) Since there was no tax incidence in the hands of the shareholder that would encourage investment in the shares of domestic companies. Sec.115O so introduced in Chapter XII-D of the Act reads thus: “115-O. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained

VILAS KISAN PATIL,URAN vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, ITD, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2178/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vilas Kisan Patin, V The Assessing Officer, House No.82, Panje, S Assessment Unit, Itd, Uran,Tal.Panvel, Panvel. Dist-Raigad, Maharashtra – 400702. Pan: Ayipp1671N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 29.08.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,92,72,028/- Made By Ld. Ao By Relying Upon The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viii) R.W.S 57(Iv) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The I.T.Act, 1961, Not Appreciating That The Said Amount Was Interest Granted U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 & Thus Bore The Character Of Enhanced Compensation On Acquisition Of Agricultural Land Situated At Village Panje, Tal.Uran, Dist. Raigd, Maharashtra & Was Therefore Exempt From Tax & The Addition Is Required To Be Deleted. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Later, Amend And/Or Vary The Grounds Of The Appeal At Any Time Before The Decision Of The Appeal.” Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. Ld.Ar For The Assessee Filed A Paper Book Containing 54 Pages. Ld.Ar Filed A Written Submission. Ld.Ar Submitted That Assessee Had Received Rs.3,85,44,057/- As Interest Under Section 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act. Ld.Ar Submitted That Said Interest Is Not Taxable As Held By The Hon’Ble Bombay High Court. Ld.Ar Filed Copy Of The Judgment. Ld.Ar Also Relied On The Following

57(iv) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the I.T.Act, 1961, not appreciating that the said amount was interest granted u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and thus bore the character of enhanced compensation on acquisition of agricultural land situated at Village Panje, Tal.Uran, Dist. Raigd, Maharashtra and was therefore exempt from tax and the addition is required

SIDHESH MOHAN RAIKAR,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.294/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

57,068/-. This comprises of Rs. 89,957/- as TDS on salary and Rs. 67,111/- as TDS on income other than salary. The apportionment of her income within the Appellant's total income comes to Rs. 3,49,596/-. Accordingly, the proportionate TDS on other income, amounting to 33,555/- (50% of 67,111/-), should have been claimed

M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

TDS) was cumbersome and involves a lot of paper work and collection from the company would be much easier. (ii) Since there was no tax incidence in the hands of the shareholder that would encourage investment in the shares of domestic companies. Sec.115O so introduced in Chapter XII-D of the Act reads thus: “115-O. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained

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

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

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

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

57,840/- to be allowed as expenditure in assessment year 2005-06 as per the first proviso to section 40(a)(i) of the Act which was inserted with effect from 01.04.2015. The balance TDS

BHAGWAN VITHOBA MORE,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Bhagwan Vithoba More, The Income Tax Officer At Post Kopergaon, Ward -1, Latur Taluka & Dist. Latur Vs. Pan : Azvpm7554P

section 57(iv) of the Act whereby a deduction of 50% of such income is allowed to the assessee in respect of income received u/s.56(2)(viii) of the Act. In view of the above, the assessing officer held that interest received on enhanced compensation of Rs.1,90,51,664/- is taxable u/s.56(2)(viii) of the Act and after

SAMADHAN KRUSHNA KATEKAR,RAIGAD vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, RAIGAD

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Samadhan Krushna Katekar Vs. National 214, Narmada Krishna Niwas Faceless Dhutum, Jasai Uran – 400702 Assessment Maharashtra Centre Pan : Azrpk4713E Appellant Respondent

57(iv), the AO added net interest income of Rs.34,16,010/- u/s. 56(2)(viii) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), relying on certain decisions, which we will advert to in the later part of the order, jettisoned the claim of the assessee thereby approving the view of the AO in bringing to tax the interest income u/s.56

PRASHANT NILAKANT KADOLIKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.233/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Prashant Nilkanth Kadolikar, 75/3, Kojagiri Apartments, Lane No.6, Kothrud, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411029 …. Pan: Agvpk8023A Vs.

TDS certificate for assessment year 2008-09 were ₹ 57,55,043/-. The Assessing Officer added last year’s receipts which were not taxed in the preceding year totaling ₹ 10,73,059/-. 5. The assessee in appeal before the CIT(A) first raised the issue of jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to assess the income under section

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

57,15,880/- 2 Subhash & B.T. Patil & Sons and N.V. Kharote A.Y. 2014-15 thereby making addition on account of (i) difference of receipts as per return of income and as per 26AS amounting to Rs. 76,46,806/- and (ii) disallowance of payments made in violation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

TDS was deducted out of salary paid to the employees, tax due to the Department has been paid and there is no merit in the contention of Revenue authorities. He further pointed out that the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in ADIT Vs. M/s. Mark & Spencer Reliance India P. Ltd. (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

TDS was deducted out of salary paid to the employees, tax due to the Department has been paid and there is no merit in the contention of Revenue authorities. He further pointed out that the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in ADIT Vs. M/s. Mark & Spencer Reliance India P. Ltd. (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

TDS was deducted out of salary paid to the employees, tax due to the Department has been paid and there is no merit in the contention of Revenue authorities. He further pointed out that the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in ADIT Vs. M/s. Mark & Spencer Reliance India P. Ltd. (supra) has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High