DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

section 40(a). Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance without appreciating that these were actual expenses incurred during AY 2017-18 by the assessee and not the "provisions for expenses” on which TDS was not deducted. 2.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 359/Pun/2013 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2008-09

87,497; Invoking the provisions of section 10A(7) and section 10AA(9) read with section 801A( 10) in the Appellant's case 3. erred in invoking the provisions of section 10A(7) and section 10AA(9) read with section 80IA(10) in the Appellant's case, on the ground that transactions between the Appellant and its associated enterprises

SALASAR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.59/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Salasar Warehousing Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, V Ward-6(1), Pune. F-2,Warehouse, Sr.No.20/2A, S Near Mundhwa Bridge, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aamcs4834C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Kandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 27/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/11/2023

87,860/- under section 43B, which includes GST payment of Rs.12,34,655/-, TDS payment of Rs.15,21,817/-, Employers

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 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

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

section 90 of the Act for an amount of INR 3,99,87,795 based on the TDS certificates received

SHAMKANT KESHAV KOTKAR (PROP. NANDAN BUILDERS),PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed interest on TDS of Rs.1,189/- and added Rs.1,189/- to the returned income. Ld.AR submitted that A.Y.2017-18 was unabated assessment. Therefore, addition could have been made only based on incriminating documents. Since there were no incriminating documents for A.Y.2017-18, Assessing Officer has not made any addition. Pr.CIT issued

M/S. HIRA ROLLER & FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

87,882/- A.Y.2009-10 The ld. AR has prayed that in view of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the issue may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for verification. The Finance Act, 2012 has inserted following proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. “Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct

M/S. HIRA ENTERPRISES,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

87,882/- A.Y.2009-10 The ld. AR has prayed that in view of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the issue may be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for verification. The Finance Act, 2012 has inserted following proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. “Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. FORCE MOTORS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1192/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05

87,168/- and brought forward losses of Rs.20,76,92,188/- have been set off against this income resulting taxable income of Rs.49,58,94,980/-. That on completion of assessment, various additions/disallowances has been made which are on record. The additions thereafter deleted by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) gave rise to the grievance of the Revenue. 3. Ground No.1

V J & SONS,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 V J & Sons, 1227 E Ward, Rajaram Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur – 416008 …. Pan: Aabfv0324M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle, Kolhapur

87,730/-. Search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Act was carried out in the case of Shri Nitil Patil. Shri Nitin Patil was the key person in firms M/s. Ghatge Patil & Sons, M/s. Hem Kiran Diesels and M/s. V.J. & Sons, Kolhapur. In the case of assessee, during the year under, it had introduced unsecured loans

HEM KIRAN DIESELS,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 V J & Sons, 1227 E Ward, Rajaram Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur – 416008 …. Pan: Aabfv0324M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central Circle, Kolhapur

87,730/-. Search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the Act was carried out in the case of Shri Nitil Patil. Shri Nitin Patil was the key person in firms M/s. Ghatge Patil & Sons, M/s. Hem Kiran Diesels and M/s. V.J. & Sons, Kolhapur. In the case of assessee, during the year under, it had introduced unsecured loans

MAHARASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1485/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Vs. Cit(A), Delhi. Plot No.42, Gut No.33 (Part) Village- Golwadi, Growth Centre, Waluj Mahanagar Iv, Cidco, Aurangabad- 431010. Pan : Aacam8494M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Magar Revenue By : Shri Uma Shankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1 Erroneous Addition Of Rs. 87,73,904/- I. The Ld. Assessing Officer & The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Making & Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 87,73,904/- Without Considering The Appellant'S Explanation That This Amount Is Already Included Under The Head Income From Business Or Profession. The Addition Is Based Solely On The Tds Schedule Without Verifying The Classification Of Income In The Itr, Which Was Incorrectly Classified Due To A Software Error. In The Complex Labyrinth Of Income Tax Law, The Principle Of Finality Serves As A Cornerstone

87,73,904/- made in the assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5 5. The appellant reserves the right to add. amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 6. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above

INDO ENTERPRISE PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS has not been claimed was included in total gross receipts of Rs.6,85,87,267/-. 3.1 Therefore, the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax observed failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to examine above issues rendering assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 29.12.2016 as erroneous so far as it is prejudicial

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

87,792/- in relation to legal and professional fees. 4. Erred in making disallowance under Section 37 of the Act in respect of legal and professional fees incurred by the Appellant on account of HR, legal, IT, finance, sales, marketing and other ancillary services without considering the fact that the same have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose

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

87,792/- in relation to legal and professional fees. 4. Erred in making disallowance under Section 37 of the Act in respect of legal and professional fees incurred by the Appellant on account of HR, legal, IT, finance, sales, marketing and other ancillary services without considering the fact that the same have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose