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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RAVINDRA BHAUSAHEB MADHAVAI ,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1737/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 69 of the Act treated the cash deposits of Rs.62,91,000/- as unexplained investment in the hands of assessee. 8. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee made payment of Rs.77,90,935/- to the contractors. The AO asked the assessee to give the list and payments to the contractors along with details of TDS

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]

TDS & L a/c. 6. Bank a/c details along with all banks statements in the following format :- 13 Ashish Niranjan Shah [A] Sr. No. Name of Branch A/c Type A/c No. the Bank 7. Details of Name, Permanent & Residential address of the assessee along with mobile number, telephone no. & email ids. 8. Evidences for deduction claimed under Chapter VIA viz. Purchase

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

Section 234 A, B and C were prima facie incorrect and ought to have been corrected by the AO. 5 TDS credit not allowed The learned CITA erred in not considering the submission and failed to appreciate that the AO allowed only part credit of taxes deducted at source Rs.2,64,69

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

Section 234 A, B and C were prima facie incorrect and ought to have been corrected by the AO. 5 TDS credit not allowed The learned CITA erred in not considering the submission and failed to appreciate that the AO allowed only part credit of taxes deducted at source Rs.2,64,69

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1(1), PUNE

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bank Of Maharashtra Vs. Dcit, Circle 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, 1(1), Pune Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Circle Vs. Bank Of Maharashtra 1(1), Pune 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent

TDS would be allowable under Section 37 of the Act. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant be allowed a claim towards education cess & secondary & higher education cess amounting to Rs.8,69

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE vs. M/S. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bank Of Maharashtra Vs. Dcit, Circle 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, 1(1), Pune Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Circle Vs. Bank Of Maharashtra 1(1), Pune 1501, Lokmangal, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 Pan : Aaccb0774B Appellant Respondent

TDS would be allowable under Section 37 of the Act. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant be allowed a claim towards education cess & secondary & higher education cess amounting to Rs.8,69

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

69,652/- as unexplained investments under section 69C of the Act and Rs. 1,54,019/- as income from other sources. The additions were made solely based on the AO's observations without appreciating the facts of the case, the true nature of the transactions, and the surrounding circumstances. ii. In the interest of natural justice, it is prayed that