AJIT ABDULMAJID MAHAT,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Roao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 4. The only issue involved in this appeal is the disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessee that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has been held that if the employees’ contribution to provident fund

DATWYLER PHARMA PACKAGING I P LTD,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits 3. The only issue involved in this appeal is the disallowance of employees‟ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessee that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has been held that if the employees‟ contribution

KOHINOOR DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for disposal on merits 4. The only issue involved in both these appeals is the disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessee that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has been held that if the employees

KOHINOOR DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

delay filing the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for disposal on merits 4. The only issue involved in both these appeals is the disallowance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund as well as ESIC. It is the case of the assessee that as per various decisions of Pune Tribunal it has been held that if the employees

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condone the delay of 01 day. 4. The brief facts of the case on hand are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of construction of buildings which is evident from para 4 of the assessment order. Further, it is noted from the assessment order that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration

KAILASWASI NARAYAN ALIAS BAPU PATIL SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), KOLHAPUR

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

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

condoning the delay from the date of creation of the trust. Accordingly, the accounts were audited. The audit report in Form No IOB was filed alongwith the accounts and return claiming its income as exempt us. 11 of the Act. iii) The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment found that the trust had tame exemption u/s.11

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1) (va) are satisfied ie, depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income

M/S SARGAM RETAILS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CPC , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1) (va) are satisfied ie, depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts the employer's liability is to be paid out of its income

SILVER OAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT-6, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the activity of construction. It filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.44,60,670/-. The return

SUKIBA MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK MAHARASHTRA

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

condone the said delay and proceed to\ndecide the appeal.\n3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-\n“1. Ground No. 1 :\nOn the facts and in law the AO has erred in disallowing employees\ncontribution to P. F. Rs.18901924 which was paid before the due\ndate of filing the return of income

NAMDEO RAMBHAU KUDALE ,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

condoned. 2 ITA No.422/PUN/2023, A.Y. 2018-19 3. We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record. 4. The only issue is to be decided

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.

Delay of 32 days in filing of these appeals stands condoned since falling under Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. ITA Nos.42 & 43/PUN/2021 for A.Y’s: 2015-16 & 16-17 DCIT Vs. M/s.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (R) 3. The Revenue’s former appeal ITA No.42/PUN/2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16 raises the following substantive grounds: “1. The order

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.

Delay of 32 days in filing of these appeals stands condoned since falling under Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period. ITA Nos.42 & 43/PUN/2021 for A.Y’s: 2015-16 & 16-17 DCIT Vs. M/s.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (R) 3. The Revenue’s former appeal ITA No.42/PUN/2021 for the A.Y. 2015-16 raises the following substantive grounds: “1. The order

KANKARIYA AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO WARD-1, AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

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

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

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of dealership of Maruti Suzuki India Limited and deals in purchase and sale of vehicles. It filed its return of income on 28.11.2014 declaring total

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 2 ITA No.59/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in family business of agriculture. For A.Y. 2018- 19, the assessee did not file his return of income. The case of the assessee was reopened

SUNITA SURESH JADHAV,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.112/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for disposal on merits. 4. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.14,90,362/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’). 5. Briefly stated

DANA INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.473/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2 Dana India Private Limited A. TRANSFER PRICING ADDITION IN `MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES’ 3. The first issue raised in this appeal is against the transfer pricing addition of Rs.22,60,76,000/- made by the AO in the ‘Manufacturing activities’. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

delay in filing of the CO is condoned and the CO is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private company, engaged in the business of trading in shares and securities. It filed its return of income on 23.12.2011 declaring total loss of Rs.26,873/-. The assessment was completed