VIJAY VYANKATRAO MANE,SADASHIV PEATH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER , ADDL/JCIT(A)- CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

TDS compliance and making the disallowance u/s 40A(i)(a) at the processing 4 stage of the return, as such adjustment is not envisaged in the provisions of law and same is also not within the power of Ld. CIT(A), therefore such observation may kindly be deleted and the proportionate addition may kindly be deleted. Your appellant prays

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

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 the provisions of section 10AA(9) read with section 80IA

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

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 the provisions of section 10AA(9) read with section 80IA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

TDS deduction disallowance(s) on account of payment of alleged royalty and section 14A read with rule 8D disallowance particularly ITA Nos.42 & 43/PUN/2021 for A.Y’s: 2015-16 & 16-17 DCIT Vs. M/s.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (R) to exempt income which are identical in the impugned assessment year as well since involving no distinction on facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

TDS deduction disallowance(s) on account of payment of alleged royalty and section 14A read with rule 8D disallowance particularly ITA Nos.42 & 43/PUN/2021 for A.Y’s: 2015-16 & 16-17 DCIT Vs. M/s.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (R) to exempt income which are identical in the impugned assessment year as well since involving no distinction on facts

M/S KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

TDS on the compensation paid to Dipps Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and hence, the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) was not warranted. 6] Without prejudice the assessee submits that if any disallowance is warranted u/s 40(a)(ia), the same should be restricted to 30% of the expenditure claimed and the action of the A.O. in disallowing entire expenditure

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 154 of the Act. Hence, the Ld. JAO be directed not to give effect to the directions of the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) relating to TDS credit. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, withdraw all or any of the above Grounds of Appeal anytime either before or during the hearing of the Appeal.” 3 ITA.No.1078/PUN/2025

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)

TDS has been made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 8. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)[Pr.CIT], Pune on perusal of the records, invoked jurisdiction u/s.263 of the 9 ITA No.1358/PUN/2025 [A] Act. The Pr.CIT issued Show cause notice to the Assessee dated 30.05.2024 u/s.263 of the Act, which is reproduced here as under

TOKAI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,HINGOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(1), JALNA, JALNA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.571/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Tokai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1, Jalna. Villag Kurunda, Taluka Basmath . District, Hingoli – 431512. Pan: Aaat6997Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anand Partani – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2024

91,954- u/s 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for non-deduction of TDS u s 194A(1). The provisions of 194A(1) are not applicable on interest paid to banks and therefore the disallowance is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 6. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case

NIHILENT LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

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 its claim of Rs.3,92,97,432/- under section 90/91

NIHILENT LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT-2, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

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 its claim of Rs.3,92,97,432/- under section 90/91

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.585/Mum/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cma Cgm Agencies Acit, Circle-6(1)(1), Mumbai Vs. India Private Limited, 407, City Tower, Boat Club Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Prakash L. Pathade Assessee By : Mahenov Thakkar Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing The Ao To Delete The Addition Of Rs.9,06,53,035/- Made By Ao On Account Of Expenditure For It Service Charges U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act, 1961 Treating Such Expense Incurred By The Assessee Company As Fees For Technical Services/Royalty?

91,965/- by Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal and has only challenged the deletion of Rs.9,06,53,035/- which was disallowed by the AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. 6. During the course of hearing, ld. DR submitted before us that the order passed

SAPANA DHARMENDRA SHAH,MALEGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, MALEGAON, MALEGAON

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2217/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sapana Dharmendra Shah, The Income Tax Officer, Khodiyar Bhavan, Ramsetu, Ward – 1, Malegaon Opp. Gayatri Mangal Karyala, Vs. Malegaon, Nashik-423203 Pan : Belps3009B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Mutha (Virtual) Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Did Not File His Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19. Based On The Information Flagged By The Cbdt Through Insight Portal Under The Head “Nms Category”, It Was Found That During The Relevant Ay 2018-19, The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Of Rs.2,91,03,000/- In Her Bank Account Maintained With The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd. In The Name Of M/S Shree Kakaji Masale & Foods. Further, There Is Also Tds Made To The Tune Of Rs.1,524/- U/S 194A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) On „Interest Other Than „Interest On Securities‟ Against A Total Credit Of Rs.15,240/- By The Malegaon Merchant‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd., Which Has Not Been Disclosed To The Department. Since, The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 05.04.2022 Which Was Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Did Not File Her Return Of Income. Thereafter, Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act As Well As Show Cause Notice Were Issued, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Certain

TDS made to the tune of Rs.1,524/- u/s 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on „interest other than „Interest on securities‟ against a total credit of Rs.15,240/- by The Malegaon Merchant‟s Co-op Bank Ltd., which has not been disclosed to the Department. Since, the assessee had not filed her return of income, notice

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

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

91,048/- received by the\nappellant from Allied Infotainment Distribution Pvt. Ltd. and Zee Media Corporation\nLtd. at sr. no. 1 & 4 respectively of the reconciliation statement above, the appellant\nin its submissions has submitted that these two parties had inadvertently mentioned\nthe PAN of the appellant instead of Den Manoranjan Satellite Pvt. Ltd. (DMSPL). The\nappellant further added that

SHRIPATRAO DADA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, KOLHAPUR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

91,500/- received from nominal members were revenue in nature and was added to the total income of the assessee for the purpose of taxation. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue at para 5.1 of his order where he upheld the findings of the ld. A.O and has classified types of members of the assessee bank

M/S P.N. GADGIL & SONS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 6, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1921/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. P. N. Gadgil & Sons, Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Pune. Abhiruchi Mall, 4Th Floor, 59C Sinhagad Road, Pune- 411041. Pan : Aanfp4476C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. R. Bhagwat Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Erred In Confirming Penalty Of Rs.23,20,000/- Levied Under Section 272B(2). 2) The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Erred In Sustaining The Penalty At Rs.23,20,000/- When There Was Only One Default & As Such Penalty Could At The Must Be Sustained At Rs.10,000/- Only. 3) The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Erred In Sustaining The Penalty Even Though There Was A Reasonable Cause For Assessee'S Failure To Obtain Pan Of Its Retail Customers. 4) The Penalty Levied Be Cancelled Or Reduced To Rs. 10,000/-.

Section 272B is linked to the person, i.e., the deductor who is responsible to deduct TDS, and not to the number of defaults regarding the PAN quoted in the TDS return. Therefore, regardless of the number of defaults in each return, maximum penalty of Rs.10,000/- can be imposed on the deductor. Penalty cannot be imposed by calculating the number

SAMEER SATISH SATPUTE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (IT) WARD 4, PUNE , B.O. BHAWAN, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2933/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Sameer Satish Satpute, Ito, (It) Ward 4, Pune 39, Rakshak Society, Aundh, Pune-411027 Vs. Pan : Asops4608L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2026 Date Of 10-04-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.09.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-13 [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2022-23. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Non- Resident Individual. During Fy 2021-22 Relevant To Ay 2022-23 Under Consideration, The Taxable Income Of The Assessee In India Comprised Of : (I) Rental Income From House Property In Pune; (Ii) Capital Gains From Stocks & Mutual Funds; (Iii) Dividend Income; (Iv) Fixed Deposits & (V) Nro Account Interest & Pass Through Income From Two Funds. For Ay 2022- 23, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) On 30.07.2022 Claiming Refund Of Rs.3,62,090/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc, Bengaluru U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Intimation Order Dated 06.10.2023 Wherein The Ld. Cpc Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,30,540/- & Raised A Tax Demand Of Rs.35,68,200/-. On Going Through The Intimation, The Assessee Noticed That Though Gross Total Income Was Accepted, Income Adopted As Chargeable At Special Rate Was Incorrect. As Per The Order Of 2

TDS claimed in the return was granted while processing, however, income taxable at special rate was adopted more by Rs.2,64,91,600/- resulting in a tax demand of Rs.35,68,200/-. The assessee therefore, filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act before the Ld. CPC. However, the rectification application was processed by the Ld. CPC assessing same total