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

SAGAR JAYWANT ELAWANDE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD13(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.224/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(1), Pune. 457, Shaniwar Peth, Pune City, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aampe1025B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary & Also Sold Immovable Property But Return Of Income Was Not Filed. On The Basis Of Above Information, The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 & Notices U/S 148A(B), 148 & 142(1) Respectively Were Issued To The Assessee. Since The Assessee Did Not Reply To Any Of The Notices

section 249 of the Act. The appellant has not complied with the above provisions of the Act and hence the appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. In result, the present appeal is dismissed.” 3 4. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this

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

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

58,631/- being employees' contribution towards Provident Fund by invoking the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the alleged ground that the said contribution was not deposited on or before 5 C.O. No.49/PUN/2025 the statutory due date. Despite of the fact that appellant is eligible for deduction U/s 80P(2)(a)(i). 4

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

58 taxmann.com 254 (Bom.) restricted the TP adjustment on account of corporate guarantee to 0.5% instead of 2%. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us challenging the correctness of the finding of the ld. CIT(A). 7. The ld. CIT-DR submits that the transaction of corporate guarantee is international

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

58,955/- 2 B-704 Mrs Rutuja Shinde 38,50,500/- 38,50,500/- 0 3 B-1105 Namo Landmark 65,72,000/- 67,25,217/- 1,53,217/- LLP 4 B-401 Mr Ritesh Neheta 81,93,404/- 85,18,110/- 3,24,706/- 5 B-205 Mr Sameer Kotkar

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

4 Subhash & B.T. Patil & Sons and N.V. Kharote A.Y. 2014-15 contract receipts for taxation and the profits can be shared by the member companies as per the sharing ratios. (d) The payments made by the assessee to its members were clearly towards sub contract and hence tax is deductible from such payments u/s 194C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

58,47,391/- which was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that\nthe relevant R & D unit was not approved by DSIR u/s 35(2AB) and therefore, the\nassessee is not entitled to claim the deduction. He submitted that before the\nAssessing Officer it was clarified that the assessee had made an application before\nDSIR and merely because

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

58,47,391/- which was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that\nthe relevant R & D unit was not approved by DSIR u/s 35(2AB) and therefore, the\nassessee is not entitled to claim the deduction. He submitted that before the\nAssessing Officer it was clarified that the assessee had made an application before\nDSIR and merely because

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

58,47,391/- which was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that\nthe relevant R & D unit was not approved by DSIR u/s 35(2AB) and therefore, the\nassessee is not entitled to claim the deduction. He submitted that before the\nAssessing Officer it was clarified that the assessee had made an application before\nDSIR and merely because

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

58,47,391/- which was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that\nthe relevant R & D unit was not approved by DSIR u/s 35(2AB) and therefore, the\nassessee is not entitled to claim the deduction. He submitted that before the\nAssessing Officer it was clarified that the assessee had made an application before\nDSIR and merely because

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

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

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

58,000/- which comprises of Rs. 1,37,73,000/- received as an additional amount for carrying out additional requirements as per customized specifications and Rs. 1,07,85,000/- being 30% of total sale consideration of row houses, totaling to Rs.3,59,50,000/-. The additional amount 3 ITA.No.1375/PUN./2024 (Tapadiya Construction Ltd.) declared in the search statement

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

section 43B of the Act. 15. The last point for the adjudication is the special manner of determination of income of the insurance companies as prescribed under rule 5 of Schedule 1 of the Act. The Profit and Loss Account disclosed by the assessee i.e. its annual accounts are sacrosanct. The said rule provides that the income to be determined

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

section 43B of the Act. 15. The last point for the adjudication is the special manner of determination of income of the insurance companies as prescribed under rule 5 of Schedule 1 of the Act. The Profit and Loss Account disclosed by the assessee i.e. its annual accounts are sacrosanct. The said rule provides that the income to be determined

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

58,49,880. A copy of the ledger account of the broker is placed on record vide Page No. 962 of the PB-V. Appellant regrets the mention that "page No. 969 of Paper-Book- V" was present on the file of the learned AO. This mistake was occurred due to confusion and for which, appellant apologies with folded hands

FCA INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED (SURVIVING ENTITY AFTER THE MERGER OF PCA MOTORS PVT LTD),PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

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

58,331/- and raised a tax demand of Rs.44,65,790/- on the assessee after disallowance of claim under section 10AA of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,15,98,511/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee had computed the income to be assessed under the head profits and gains from business or profession of the year under