SAMEER SHRIKANT PISE,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, is not chargeable in case of Appellant being under liquidation under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The AO is directed to verify the issue, its applicability in the case of the appellant and take action as per law. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Aggrieved

PRAKASH DIPCHAND KAPADNIS,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2429/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 139(1) of the Act. The information was available with the Assessing Officer on the basis of Form No.26AS indicating that the assessee has received Commission/Brokerage of Rs.24,89,121/- on which TDS

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

TDS provisions. As regards, the claim for allowance as revenue expenditure on product development expenditure of Rs.4,19,75,171/-, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the same following the Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. PAN INTERNATIONAL, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.175/Pun/2020 & Co No. 23/Pun/2022 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Pan International, 347, Afl House, Off Dhole Patil Rd, Behind Hotel Meru, Pune – 411 001 . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Pan: Aabfp4234F & Cross Objector द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sharad Vaze Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Revenue Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 06/11/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Quashing The Order Of Assessment Dt. 10/03/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Pune[For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2008-09 On Technical-Cum-Legal Ground.

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 TDS needs to be deducted on the amount of Rs. 30,333/- paid on account of advertisement expenses, Rs. 66,89

PRITAM SHRIKANT PARVATKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-12, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

TDS credit is duly appearing in Form 26AS of the Appellant for the year under appeal. The appellant submits that the case of the appellant could not be properly explained in absence of adequate opportunity both during the assessment and appellate proceedings. 2.3 The appellant, therefore, prays that the above non-allowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer may please

PRITAM SHRIKANT PARVATKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

TDS credit is duly appearing in Form 26AS of the Appellant for the year under appeal. The appellant submits that the case of the appellant could not be properly explained in absence of adequate opportunity both during the assessment and appellate proceedings. 2.3 The appellant, therefore, prays that the above non-allowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer may please

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

89,239.00\n18,70,007.00\n18,70,007.00\nIn response thereto, the appellant vide its reply dated 20.03.2024 has submitted as\nunder:\nSr.\nNo.\nParty Name\nAmount\nRemarks\n1\nTurner General\nEntertainment\nNetwork\n5,61,800\nThis amount is recorded in the name of\nStar }, "summary": { "facts": "The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A) who deleted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD vs. WOCKHARDT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.774/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11

89,86,540/-. This is benefit provided to the distributor/stockiest equivalent to commission paid on which TDS was required to be deducted as per the provisions of sec.194H of the Act which the assessee has failed to deduct. Such failure attracts provisions of section

RIL NMD EMP CO. OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,RAIGAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section\n80P of the assessee, is hereby rejected and Rs.21,14,557/- is included in\nthe income of the assessee.. During the course of assessment proceedings,\non verification of the profit and loss A/c, the assessee has made provisions\nof Rs.19,89,397/- it includes Rs.90,000/- as Sanugrah Anudan. It is a kind\nof donation

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR., AAYAKAR, BHAVAN, BEHIND NATRAJ HOTEL, AURANGABAD ROAD, AHMEDNAGAR vs. KANHUR PATHAR MULTI STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY MARYADIT KANHUR, KANHUR DIST. AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 194A(3)(v) have excluded Co- Operative Bank from Co-operative society to deduct TDS u/s194A on interest paid to member thereof. Thus, the legislative intent is to distinguish co-operative banks from co- operative societies for the purpose of benefits u/s 80P as held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT vs. Totagars Co- operative

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR., AHMEDNAGAR vs. KANHUR PATHAR MULTI STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY MARYADIT , KANHUR, KANHUR DIST. AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 194A(3)(v) have excluded Co- Operative Bank from Co-operative society to deduct TDS u/s194A on interest paid to member thereof. Thus, the legislative intent is to distinguish co-operative banks from co- operative societies for the purpose of benefits u/s 80P as held by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of PCIT vs. Totagars Co- operative

BHAGWAN VITHOBA MORE,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Bhagwan Vithoba More, The Income Tax Officer At Post Kopergaon, Ward -1, Latur Taluka & Dist. Latur Vs. Pan : Azvpm7554P

TDS-1, Surat to state that interest does not fall within the ambit of expression ‘Interest’ as contemplated in section 145A of the Act. It was stated that it is clear from the decisions cited by him that interest received u/s. 28 is a part of enhanced compensation which is taxable u/s. 45(5) of the Act and in case

SANKET FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1956/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sanket Food Products Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3), Jalna Flat No.101, Bhoomi Apartment, 1St Floor, Nutan Laxmi Chs, Plot No.9, Jvpd Scheme, Ville Parle (W), N.S. Road, No.8, Mumbai – 400056 Pan: Aaecs0131P Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing 08-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11-02-2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am : This Appeal Is Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 24.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The History Of Notices By Itat Issued For Hearing In This Case Is As Under: Date Of Hearing Present / Absent 03.07.2020 Ld. Ar Present & Sought Adjournment 04.08.2020 Ld. Ar Present & Sought Adjournment 09.09.2020 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 09.10.2020 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 10.11.2020 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 08.01.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 30.04.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 16.09.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 08.11.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 15.12.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 08.02.2022 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 3. Even On 08.02.2022, No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. From The History Of Hearings Mentioned Above, It Can Be Seen That Sufficient Opportunity Has Already

89,381/-. 5. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in disallowing Interest for delay in payment of TDS to the tune of Rs.86,169 11. In this case, assessment order was passed ex-parte. However, the appellant was represented by a Chartered Accountant before the CIT(A). The appellant filed additional evidences before the CIT(A), who had called

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]

89,721 The segment labelled as “Other Sales” is with non-AE. The other two segments are with AE. The TPO observed that assessee’s allocation of common cost on the basis of sales is not proper, because in two segments the transactions are with AE; meaning thereby these are tainted segments. The Assessee has charged its AE at Cost

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:

89% of the total market share in the Infant Care industry for the calendar years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. In this regard reliance is placed on Hon’ble High court's order in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. versus Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Transfer Pricing officer New Delhi W.P.(C) 6876 / 2008.  That the assessee pays

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

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

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,,CHALISGAON vs. DCIT TDS NASHIK AND DCIT CPC TDS,, GHAZIABAD

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

section 234E of Rs.4,000/- by stating that the appellant had failed to 2 file the quarterly statement of TDS of first quarter for financial year 2015-16 in Form No.26Q on 04.08.2015 against the due date of 15.07.2015. Therefore, there was a delay of 20 days. Accordingly, the ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad had levied penalty of late