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

TDS credit and hence the carry forward of MAT credit of erstwhile company has to be allowed to the amalgamated company. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that section 72A, like some other provisions distinctly dealing with the effects of amalgamation, exclusively applies to accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income

RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

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

short \"the Act\"). In this case a\nsurvey action u/sec.133A of the Act was conducted on 14.09.2016 at his business\npremises. The case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny. During\nthe course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer referred to the various\nquestions put to the assessee especially question no.11 and 13, details of which are\nas under

SUSHMA PRAMOD NIMHAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

TDS of 1% i.e. Rs.1,76,750/- has been deducted by the purchaser, M/s. Symbiosis Institute indicates that the land in question is a capital asset as per the definition of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and therefore liable for tax. He accordingly issued a show cause notice requesting the assessee to explain as to why the sale

NANASAHEB BHAGAWAN SASAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

Term Capital Gains of Rs.2,61,16,879/- in both the ITRs filed. 4.9 The Return of Income is the basic document in which the correct income as well as the correct TDS are to be admitted and claimed properly by the assessee for claiming any credit. If the appellant claims the full amount of TDS

RAM LAXMANRAO MITKARI,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

short Act”]. 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. A perusal of the assessee’s pleadings reveals that his sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges 2 ITA.No.574/PUN/2020 Sh Ram Laxmanrao Mitkari, Latur. correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action assessing his interest income of Rs.56,48,961/- received u/s 28 of the Land

BALASAHEB VITTHAL SHINDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(4), PUNE, AAYAKAR VIBHAG, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12 Balasaheb Vitthal Shinde Ito, Ward-5(4), Pune Chaledi, Nasarapur, Taluka Bhor, Vs. Pune – 412213 Pan: Anips1140A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak S Sasar Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 17-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

TDS was deducted. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened after recording reasons and notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued and served on the assessee. The assessee in response to the same filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.9,69,976/-. The Assessing Officer issued

VASANT KRISHNAJI SUPEKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1899/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vasant Krishnaji Supekar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-6, Rajeshri Shahu Society, Ward-5(4), Pune Pune Satara Road, Bibvewadi S.O., Pune City, Pune 411037 Maharashtra Pan : Clpps2859R Appellant Respondent

Short-term capital gain of the assessee and CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned assessing officer has erred in taxing rental receipts of Rs. 2 Vasant Krishnaji Supekar 7,08,000/- as income of the assessee without allowing standard deduction and other due deductions, TDS

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

term Goodwill was not explicitly excluded from the list of intangible\nassets eligible for depreciation, In absence of this clarity, there were\ndivergent views on the issue.\n7.2.4 Since there were divergent views of the Hon'ble Courts on the issue,\ntherefore, to end this ambiguity the necessary amendments in section 32(1)\nof the Income

RAJENDRA GANPAT JAGTAP,PUNE vs. ITO WARD(8)(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS-194I) 2,97,71,698/- 2.1. The Assessing Officer, therefore, reopened the assessment by recording reasons as per the provisions of sec.147 and notice u/sec.148 was issued to the assessee on 19.04.2022. The assessee, in response to the same, filed return of income on 02.03.2024 declaring total income at Rs.17,54,860/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/sec.147

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.

short grant of TDS credit. It is prayed that the Company be granted with appropriate credit for TDS post which the interest levy shall become inapplicable. Ground No.8: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings against the Company under section 274 r.w.s. 271F of the 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.

short grant of TDS credit. It is prayed that the Company be granted with appropriate credit for TDS post which the interest levy shall become inapplicable. Ground No.8: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings against the Company under section 274 r.w.s. 271F of the Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

short ‘the Act').\n2. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :\n“1.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.\nCIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without\nappreciating that the claim of TDR proceeds being exempt under\nRFCTLARR_Act was never raised by the assessee before the AO\nduring

TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

short credit of Tax Deducted at Source („TDS‟) amounting to INR 2,47,666. Ground No.7: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. Briefly, the facts are under

RAJESH MOHANLAL BORA,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, NASHIK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1609/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajesh Mohanlal Bora, 401, Rushiraj House, Thatte Nagar, College Road, Nashik – 422 005 Pan : Abcpb5526F . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Ito Ward- 1(1) Nashik . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/08/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Dove Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 29/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Income Tax Officer 1(1), Nashik [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 8

capital gain with respect to sale consideration, iii) Unsecured loans from persons who have not filed their return of income iv) Huge interest paid not commensurate with loans raised v) Less turnover, large business loss set off against other head vi) Cash deposit in bank accounts 2.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, upon a perusal of profit & loss account

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

TDS other than salary is Rs.57,70,151/- whereas as per Form 26Q you have deposited Rs.57,59,489/- Please clarify. 7. As per form 3CD, Col.17, Sale of TDR is less than value adopted by State Govt. authority referred to in Section 50C or 43CA. Please explain with evidence. 8. You have claimed Advance for land to the tune

BRAHMAN SABHA KARVEER,MAHARASHTRA vs. CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, CIT EXEMPTION PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

short “the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. We note with the able assistance coming from the department’s side represented by the learned DR that the CIT(E) herein has declined the assessee’s sec.80G registration 2 ITA.No.795/PUN./2024 application filed on 20.03.2024 mainly on the ground

E-GAIN COMMUNICATIONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2675/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 E-Gain Communications Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Ltd., Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, The Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune. [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 11.08.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Egain Communication

gain of business or profession on which tax is deductible at source; but such tax has not been deducted. The expression 'amount payable' which is otherwise an allowable deduction refers to the expenditure incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee and therefore, the said expenditure is a deductible claim. Thus, section 40 refers to the outgoing amount chargeable

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

short]. CIT [A] deleted such addition primarily on the ground that the assessee had established the source, genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the investors. In further detailed consideration, the Tribunal confirmed the view of CIT [A], making the following observations :- "I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment order and the written submission