PASHANKAR AUTO WHEELS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. CIT(A) CIRCLE-4, PUNE

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

TDS statement – Rent (section 194-I) 4,50,000 2 3. He, therefore, passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 26.03.2022 after following due procedure. Since income to the tune of Rs.4,46,64,231/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.03.2022 which was duly served

RAJARAMBAPU SHETKARI AND SHETMAJUR SAHHAYA SAMITI,,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SANGLI

Appeal is allowed for stastical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.370/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 197(1) approval for non deduction of TDS certificate regarding all the service providers/payees up to 31.03.2011 but the same could not hold good since the crushing season in issue stood extended upto the third week of April 2011. It was therefore pleaded that the impugned disallowance represents 1% TDS deduction of Rs.65,69

APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

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

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

Section 69 of the Income Tax Act ignoring the fact that these deposits were made through the sweep account facility linked to the current account of the Appellant. 4.4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in not allowing credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS

APPASO SAMPATRAO MANE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

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

section 144 of the Act based on the\ninformation available on-line on record. The Ld. AO therefore completed the\nassessment at total income of Rs.59,12,720/- by making an addition of\nRs.56,03,725/- on account of purchase of immovable property u/s 69 r.w.s.\n115BBE of the Act and Rs.3,08,995/- on account of payment of credit

SACHIN GOVIND KELKAR,PUNE vs. CIT (A), PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 143(1) of the Act and denial of TDS credit and raising the demand of Rs.2,69,430/-. 2. The Assessing

SHRI MULTANCHAND BORA TRUST,PUNE vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE- AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1312/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Multanchand Bora Trust, V The Assistant/Deputy 132B/2A, Ganeshkhind Road, S. Commissioner Of Income Pune – 411007. Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad. Pan: Aafts3329F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shrenik Gandhi Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune At Nashik Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 30.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Cit (Exemption) Seriously Erred On The Facts & Law, In Exercising The Revisionary Powers Under Section

TDS iii. 7. It is specifically mentioned in the Assessment Order that Assessee is a Public Charitable Trust duly registered u/s.12A of the Act and also registered with Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar vide Registration No.E-130 dated 07.09.1964. It is also mentioned in the assessment order that assessing officer issued notices dated 29.06.2021, 27.11.2021 and 09.12.2021. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment

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.

section 144 of the Act. The Assessing Officer estimated the income @ 70% of gross receipts based on the income shown by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer noted from the assessment order for assessment year 2007-08 that the total professional receipts as per TDS certificate were ₹ 69

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

69,50,216 against returned income of INR 2,91,45,12,630. Corporate Tax Grounds: Disallowance under section 10AA of the Act: 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO, erred in reducing the deduction claimed under section 10AA of the Act by INR 1,95,31,01,681 by invoking

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

69,50,216 against returned income of INR 2,91,45,12,630. Corporate Tax Grounds: Disallowance under section 10AA of the Act: 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO, erred in reducing the deduction claimed under section 10AA of the Act by INR 1,95,31,01,681 by invoking

MRS. SNEHAL SAMEER BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 13(2), PUNE, PUNE

Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1549/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mrs. Snehal Sameer Bhujbal, V The Income Tax Officer, Sanswadi, Nagar Road, S Ward-13(2), Pune. Pune – 412208. Maharashtra. Pan: Blcpb5495C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 16.05.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held

69 of the Act and is subjected to tax as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee has filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Assessee has made an elaborate submission before ld.CIT(A). However, ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 6.1 In this case, the ld.AR for the Assessee also filed copy

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

69,072 4. It has been seen from the profit and loss account of the assessee that payments are made to its member companies; however, TDS have not been deducted. The assessee had assigned the work allotted to it, to its member companies and as such the agreement between the entities was nothing but a contract and the assessee being

ELECTRONICA FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2629/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Electronica Finance Limited, V The Dcit, “Audumber”, 101/1, S Circle-1(1), Pune. Erandwane, Dr.Ketkar Road, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aaace4577B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 19.12.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

69,489/- Appellant contends that the said interest on TDS ought not to be taxed being compensatory in nature and not penal. The said interest has not been claimed as expenditure during the year 5. The Learned I-T authorities erred in law and on facts, by considering the gross amounts of the "EMIs" as reflected in Form 26AS

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

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

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

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

69,673/- under section 68 cash credit being entire outstanding balance of sundry creditors without making any further verification entire additions needs to be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.15,41,756 under section 40(a)(ia) by considering that under

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.688/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Adient India Private Limited, Plot No.1, S.No.235 & 245 Hinjewadi, Taluka: Mulshi, Pune-411057. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact6342D बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-14, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Pinkesh Jain Revenue By : Smt. Shabana Parveen सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 7, Pune Dated 18.11.2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing Reimbursement Of Salary “1. Costs To The Extent Of Rs. 69,12,276 Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act For Non-Deduction Of Tax At Source. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That The Appellant 2. Was Issued Nil Withholding Tax Certificates For Similar Payments & Therefore, The Reimbursement Of Rs. 69,12,276, Being Of The Same Nature, Ought To Have Been Not Disallowed Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act. 3. Without Prejudice To The Above, The Learned Cit(A) Further Erred In Not Appreciating That Reimbursement Of Salary Costs Paid To Johnson Controls Automotive Pte. Ltd, Singapore Is Not Chargeable To Tax In India & Therefore, There Is No Liability Of The Appellant To Deduct Tax Under Section 195 Of The Act.

69,12,276, being of the same nature, ought to have been not disallowed under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that reimbursement of salary costs paid to Johnson Controls Automotive Pte. Ltd, Singapore is not chargeable to tax in India and therefore, there