GALLAGHER SERVICE CENTER LLP,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Gallagher Service Center Llp, Acit , Pune 401, A,B,C,D,E,F & G, Delta 2, Gigaspace Complex, Viman Vs. Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aaqfg7417F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 16-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp :

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds of appeal on or before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal according

MS RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,JALGAON vs. DCIT, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S Rajmal Lakhichand Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon – 425001 Pan: Aacfr8609L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2025 O R D E R

TDS- Rs. 30,22,145/- 5. Interest on LBT- Rs.133/- 6. Interest on VAT- Rs. 2,02,248/- 5 Out of this, interest of Rs.2,16,99,167/- paid to bank and interest of Rs.3,31,77,113/- paid to others is liable for considering for disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 9. He analyzed

SHIVAJI JAGANNATH BHOSALE,BARAMATI vs. ITO WARD-5(4), PUNE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1873/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 Mr.Shivaji Jagannath Bhosale, The Income Tax Officer, Shrinath Transport Company, Vs Ward-5(4), Pune. Near Dynamix Dairy, Baramati-Bhigwan Ropad, Baramati, Pune – 413133 Pan: Abgpb 8933 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandhbhor – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 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)-8, Pune, Dated 20.09.2019For The A.Y. 2003-04. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 25,00,000/- In Respect Of Transportation Charges. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Failed To Consider The Fact That Transport Charges Paid By The Appellant Have Not Been Doubted In Assessments Of Any Of The Subsequent Years & Therefore Following The Principle Of Consistency No Addition On Adhoc Basis Can Be Made On The Same Ground In A. Y. 2003-04. Mr.Shivaji Jagannath Bhosale (A)

section 40(a)(ia) which makes it incumbent on the assessee to make TDS was introduced with effect from A. Y. 2004-05. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,67,924/- in respect of salary expenses. 6. On the facts

STAR QUENCHERS SPIRIT PVT. LTD,NASHIK vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara& Dr. Dipak P. Ripotestar Quenchers Spirit Pvt. Vs Jcit – Tds Range, Ltd., Flat No.1-1, Basant Nashik. Building, Spandan Nagar, Cidco, Aurangabad. Pan: Aancs 2939 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : /05/2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assesseeagainst The Orderof Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Nfac], Delhi,Dated 30.01.2023U/S. 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Act For A.Y.2011-12.The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Rs.1,09,304/- Penalty As Directed By Itat In Its Order Para 4,5,6. Appellant Prays To Delete Whole Of The Penalty Confirmed By Cit(A) Of Rs. 1,09,304/- 2. Without Prejudice To Ground No.1 Rs. 1,09,304/- Cit(A) Has Erred In Exceeding His Jurisdiction In Conforming Penalty Of Star Quenchers Spirit Pvt. Ltd.

77 7,700/- Which is less than the tax collectible i.e. Rs. 1,21,137/- Total penalty Rs.1158+1158+1488+11100+38100 +28900+19700+7700 = 1,09,304/- The deductor, has therefore, rendered itself to be penalized u/s. 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I am therefore, satisfied that the assessee has committed

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

77,256/- to Vishwakarma Global Edu Services P. Ltd on account of subscription to online learning platform out of which an amount of Rs.22,20,65,484/- is related to this year which amounts to Rs.96.20% of the total revenue from operations of the said concern. The profit margin shown by the said concern works out to 44.25% which

FINANCE DEPARTMENT ZILHA PARISHAD,,LATUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE - TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

77 73450100011724 26Q Q3 15-Jan-11 29-Nov-11 318 73450100011735 26Q Q4 15-May-11 29-Nov-11 198 4. A notice was duly served on the assessee. However, there was no compliance of the said notice nor any explanation was put-forth by the assessee before the ld. A.O explaining the default. In these circumstances

MANOHAR MACHHINDRA THAKUR,RAIGAD vs. ITO,WARD 2, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshalimanohar Machhindra Thakur, Vs Ito, Ward-2, Panvel. Dhutum Uran, Raigad-400702 Maharashtra. Pan: Ajjpt 7526 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/03/2024 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 31.10.2023 For A.Y.2019-20 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld.Ao Erred In Taxing & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Amount Of Interest Received Of Rs. 5,17,55,606/- U/Sec. 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act & Thereby Erred In Taxing Rs. 2,58,77,803/- (After Giving 50% Deduction U/Sec. 57(Iv)). 2. Without Prejudice To Above, The Ld.Ao Be Directed To Consider Only My Share I.E. 1/5Th Only As Interest U/Sec. 28 & That Much Only Be Taxed After Giving 50% Deduction. 3. The Appellant Craves Its Right To Add To Or Alter The Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Case.”

TDS, the AO made the addition of Rs. 2,58,77,803/- being 50% of income on Rs. 5,17,55,606/- u/sec. 57(iv) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the NFAC. The NFAC, after considering the detailed submissions made by the assessee as well as assessment order

CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ELPHINSTONE ROAD-WEST, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1454/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Cma Cgm Agencies India Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Private Limited, One International Centre, Tower-3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone Road- West, Mumbai- 400013. Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mahenov Thakkar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Patil Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.4,86,77,518/- 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ao’) & Holding That Payment Of It Services To Be In The Nature Of Royalty Under Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act/ Fees For Technical Services Under Section 9(1)(Vii) Of The Act;

77,518/- 1. erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer (‘AO’) and holding that payment of IT services to be in the nature of royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act/ fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act; 2 2. erred in not following the ruling

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:

TDS u/s 194J of the Act and justified the action of the Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 22. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. There is no material on record to show that the HUL had provided any services like technical or managerial in nature

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. LALIT RAGHUNATHRAO SHINDE , PUNE

77,340.00\n30-Apr-08 Cr DEN MANORANJAN SATELLITE PVT LTD\nJournal\n58\n3,70,800.00\nCr DEN MANORANJAN SATELLITE PVT LTD\nJournal\n79\n3,733.00\n18-Jul-08 Dr HDFC BANK 6022\nReceipt\n57\n3,62,397.67\n15-Mar-09 Dr Bad Debts\nJournal\n263\n1,65,699.33\n15,05,437.00\n15,05,437.00\nName changed\nDen Manoranjan Satelite

AAM INDIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

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

TDS credit of INR 2,56,500 which is clearly visible in Form 26AS for the subject assessment year Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 270A the Act 15. Erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings by the AO as outlined above under section 274 in conjunction with section 270A of the Act. Any consequential

DILIP HIRALAL CHAUDHARI,NANDURBAR vs. ITO, WARD, DHULE

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

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

77,900/- in his Bank 3 A/c No.SB/1143 maintained with Nasik Merchant Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Nandurbar branch during demonetization period. During the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had deposited total cash of Rs.92,33,100/-. The case was selected under ‘Operation Clean Money’ for verification of source of such cash deposits. Since

CARRORO INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

77,110/- as against returned income of Rs.5,62,31,989/- declared by the Appellant. II) In respect of Corporate Tax Disallowance: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble DRP and consequently the learned AO have : Erroneous disallowance amounting to Rs.8,17,28,763/-on account of brand royalty and royalty

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CARRARO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

77,110/- as against returned income of Rs.5,62,31,989/- declared by the Appellant. II) In respect of Corporate Tax Disallowance: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon‟ble DRP and consequently the learned AO have : Erroneous disallowance amounting to Rs.8,17,28,763/-on account of brand royalty and royalty

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

TDS had been deducted, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income had escaped assessment to tax, then issued notice u/s 148 on 29.03.2018 after recording reasons u/s 147. In response to notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed return of income on 26.04.2018. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

TDS had been deducted, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income had escaped assessment to tax, then issued notice u/s 148 on 29.03.2018 after recording reasons u/s 147. In response to notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed return of income on 26.04.2018. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

TDS. Thus, he submits that the appellant had discharged the onus lying upon it in terms of provisions of section 19 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 68 of the Act. In the circumstances, the AO was not justified in making the addition of unsecured loans. E. As regards, the addition made on account

SG ANALYTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

77 taxmann.com 165 (Ahmedabad – Trib) and CIT & Ors. Vs. De Beers India Minerals (P) Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 467 (Karnatka) to hold that in absence of the A.Y. 2014-15 corresponding technical services being “made available” to the assessee herein it was under no obligation to deduct TDS on these professional charges payments. The impugned disallowance pertaining to the assessee