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

72 (SC). (viii) As regards, the disallowance of donation of Rs.5,50,000/- u/s 37(1), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of donation of Rs.5,50,000/- made to Sakal Social Foundation. (ix) With regard to claim for allowance of depreciation on windmill of Rs.56,11,914/-, the ld. CIT(A) held that civil construction and electrical work

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). Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance without\nappreciating that these were actual expenses incurred during AY 2017-18\nby the assessee and not the \"provisions for expenses” on which TDS was\nnot deducted.\n2.2\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating the fact that

DHAVALKUMAR DHULAPPA GAT,BANGALORE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

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

72,987 was never under dispute. The only issue was that\ndeduction under section 54 was not claimed in the return of income.\n4.\nThe appellant had relied upon the legal precedents and CBDT circular\nwherein it was held that the genuine exemption/deduction or credit\nfor TDS

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

72 if the … amalgamation … had not taken place’. It is thus graphically clear from the prescription of section 72A, that it applies only in respect of accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. The benefit of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company, which would have been otherwise available

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

72 if the … amalgamation … had not taken place’. It is thus graphically clear from the prescription of section 72A, that it applies only in respect of accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. The benefit of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company, which would have been otherwise available

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 Credit Card bills Total 72

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 Credit Card bills Total 72

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

72,920/- under section 234D of the Act. 5 b. The learned ACIT erred in not appreciating that as no refund had been received by the appellant for the aforesaid assessment year, no interest could be charged under section 234D of the Act. 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. a. The learned ACIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

72,31,464/-; (iii) disallowance of payments to HUL on account of Cost on Employee deputation for non-deduction of tax of Rs.1,84,43,055/-; and (iv) disallowance of payments to HUL on account of Selling discount for non- deduction of TDS of Rs.5,13,20,724/-. On receipt of draft assessment order, the appellant company has chosen

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.8,69,48 904/- paid by it during the previous year 2014-15 in the computation of total income. 6. In the facts

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.8,69,48 904/- paid by it during the previous year 2014-15 in the computation of total income. 6. In the facts

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

72 of the order of Hon’ble SB]. The observations of the Hon'ble Bombay HC in G&B HC decision regarding the legal characteristics of DOT, that it is tax on a company paying the dividend and "is chargeable to tax on its profits as a distinct taxable entity and that the domestic company paying DOT does

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

72,290/-\nli\nAdd: TP Adjustment\n12,70,86,646/-\nii\nAdd: Disallowances u/s.14A r.w.s.8D\n47,55,629/-\n\nill\n\nAdd: Denial of claim of deduction u/s.\n35(2AB)\n13,10,97,715/-\n\niv\nAdd: Denial of claim of deduction on\naccount of Education Cess Paid\n5,28,66,834/-\n\n2\nTotal Assessed Income

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

72,290/-\nli\nAdd: TP Adjustment\n12,70,86,646/-\nii\nAdd: Disallowances u/s.14A r.w.s.8D\n47,55,629/-\niii\nAdd: Denial of claim of deduction u/s.\n35(2AB)\n13,10,97,715/-\niv\nAdd: Denial of claim of deduction on\naccount of Education Cess Paid\n5,28,66,834/-\n2\nTotal Assessed Income\n31,58,06,824/-\n756

RIDDHI SIDDHI MAHILA NAGARI CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, KARAD,KARAD vs. CIT (APPEALS), DELHI

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2216/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Riddhi Siddhi Mahila Nagari Vs. Assessment Unit, Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Income Tax Department. Palkar House, 157, Guruwar Peth, Shri Vitthal Chouk, Karad- 415110. Pan : Aacar0958D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijaykumar N. Kashirsagar Revenue By : Shri Vinod Pawar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Primary Credit Co-Operative Society Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Also In Accepting Deposits From Them. On The Basis Of Information That The Assessee Has Made One Time Deposit Of Rs.5,95,522/- & Tds Of More Than Rs.7,72,686/-

TDS of more than Rs.7,72,686/- 2 was deducted u/s 194A of the Act on the PAN of the assessee and still assessee has not furnished its return of income for the period under consideration, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee after necessary compliance and approvals. Subsequently, other statutory

NIHILENT LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT-2, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

72,202/- has been claimed by it under section 91. It is observed that no supporting of any kind has been furnished by the assessee with Form no. 67 in respect of six of the 10 countries listed in Form no. 67 namely Botswana, Benin, Cameroon, Congo, Ghana and Liberia. (d) During the revision proceedings, the assessee has reiterated

NIHILENT LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

72,202/- has been claimed by it under section 91. It is observed that no supporting of any kind has been furnished by the assessee with Form no. 67 in respect of six of the 10 countries listed in Form no. 67 namely Botswana, Benin, Cameroon, Congo, Ghana and Liberia. (d) During the revision proceedings, the assessee has reiterated

AJAY ENGINEERING & AGRI EQUIPMENT COMPANY,AURANGABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

TDS u/s.194C; (iii) Mismatch of Sales Turnover at Rs.1,72,62,558/-; (iv) Improper verification of Sundry Creditors; and (v) Interest on refund u/s.244A at Rs.24,969/- not offered for taxation. 3. During the course of revision proceedings, the assessee submitted explanation in respect of all the five items jotted down above. The ld. Pr.CIT discussed these issues