DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. SKODA AUTO A.S.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.787/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

TDS which was claimed by the assessee was ₹ 2.08 crores, whereas the deduction under section 10(6A) of the Act was only ₹ 1.90 crores. He further referred to form NO.10CEB of SAIPL placed at page 58

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SAHAAN INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1586/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

TDS u/s.194J read with Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of Sub-section (i) of Section 9 of the Act. This disallowance was deleted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which forms the bedrock of Revenue‟s appeal before us. 3. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of owning and maintaining Race

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would apply. 6. the A.O further held that the assessee had claimed TDS of Rs. 59,58

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 under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 58. Both the learned Authorized Representatives have elaborately

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 under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 58. Both the learned Authorized Representatives have elaborately

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 under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 58. Both the learned Authorized Representatives have elaborately

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 under the provisions of section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. 58. Both the learned Authorized Representatives have elaborately

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

58 of the order of Hon'ble SB]. Also, the Hon'ble Bombay HC [in case of SIDBI vs. CBDT (133 taxmann.com 158) (‘SIDBI ruling'), after discussing the effect of the non-obstante clause in S. 50 of SIDBI Act, and holding that those provisions will override S. 115-0 of the Act, further went on to hold that dividend

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

58,38,285 under section 68 cash credit being entire unsecured loan accepted during the year by disregarding explanation and information submitted by the appellant the action of Learned Assessing Officer is illegal and arbitrary the entire addition deserves to be deleted 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned Assessing Officer erred

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

58,288/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual

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

58,288/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

58 (Special Bench) (Flag No A-06 of legal compilation) - It was held that, installation, testing and training services were related to sale of equipment therein and hence, were auxiliary to such sale, and as such, do not qualify for any TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

58 (Special Bench) (Flag No A-06 of legal compilation) - It was held that, installation, testing and training services were related to sale of equipment therein and hence, were auxiliary to such sale, and as such, do not qualify for any TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

58 (Special Bench) (Flag No A-06 of legal compilation) - It was held that, installation, testing and training services were related to sale of equipment therein and hence, were auxiliary to such sale, and as such, do not qualify for any TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

58 (Special Bench) (Flag No A-06 of legal compilation) - It was held that, installation, testing and training services were related to sale of equipment therein and hence, were auxiliary to such sale, and as such, do not qualify for any TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

58 (Special Bench) (Flag No A-06 of legal compilation) - It was held that, installation, testing and training services were related to sale of equipment therein and hence, were auxiliary to such sale, and as such, do not qualify for any TDS i.e. not FTS u/s 9(1)(vii). It is submitted, T & D services involved in the present appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MUKUND JAISHANKAR DHARIYA,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.330/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

58,412/- by invoking section 14A read with rule 8D under the facts available on record. Further, disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income.” Considering the same, we are of the opinion that the issue should be remanded to the file of AO for applying the aforesaid ratio of the decisions/judgments. Accordingly, we direct

MUKUND DHARIYA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.330/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

58,412/- by invoking section 14A read with rule 8D under the facts available on record. Further, disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income.” Considering the same, we are of the opinion that the issue should be remanded to the file of AO for applying the aforesaid ratio of the decisions/judgments. Accordingly, we direct

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

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

58,22,710/- under section 801C of the Act. 4.2 The learned AO had failed to appreciate that the said claim for deduction u/s 80 IC of the Act was duly certified and supported by the audit report in Form No. 10CCB furnished electronically as mandated under sub section 7 of Section 80 IC and Rule 12 (2) read with