MANAV PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 271(1)(c), whereas, penalty has been levied without mentioning any specific Charge or Limb in penalty order.” 8. Brief facts of the case as emanating from record are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Corrugated Boxes and filed return of income declaring at Nil. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings determining

MANAV PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 271(1)(c), whereas, penalty has been levied without mentioning any specific Charge or Limb in penalty order.” 8. Brief facts of the case as emanating from record are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Corrugated Boxes and filed return of income declaring at Nil. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings determining

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation / brought forward business loss be upheld. 3. Ground No. 3 On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 35,16,386/- under section 234A of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234A of the Act could

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation / brought forward business loss be upheld. 3. Ground No. 3 On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 35,16,386/- under section 234A of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234A of the Act could

KRISHI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI,SOLAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, SOLAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.77/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 Krishi Utpanna Bazar Sammittee, The Asst. Commissioner Basveshwar Market Yard, Tal: Vs Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Akkalkot, Solapur – 413216. Solapur. Pan: Aaaak 1791 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Pune-10’S, Order Dated 06.11.2019For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Involving Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Levying The Penalty Of Rs.2,02,600/- By Passing Order U/S 271(1)(C) By Disregarding The Appellants Contention.”

section 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law The Learned Assessing Officer erred in levying the penalty of Rs.2,02,600/- by passing order u/s 271(1)(c) by disregarding the appellants contention.” 2. Brief

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

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

section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately.\"\nIn appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition by observing as\n“6.5 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant stated that this issue has been decided in favour of the appellant by the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT in the appellant bank's own case for the assessment year

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA ,PUNE vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately.” 34. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition by observing as under: “6.5 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant stated that this issue has been decided in favour of the appellant by the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT in the appellant bank's own case for the assessment year

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

EAGLE FLASK INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.474 & 2000/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

section 271(1)(c) of the Act from the notice issued u/s.274 is detrimental to the imposition of the penalty. Indubitably, there can be a case involving both the charges, viz., some of the additions or disallowance falling under the limb of `concealment of income’, while others under `furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’. In such a situation, there

EAGLE FLASK INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.474 & 2000/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

section 271(1)(c) of the Act from the notice issued u/s.274 is detrimental to the imposition of the penalty. Indubitably, there can be a case involving both the charges, viz., some of the additions or disallowance falling under the limb of `concealment of income’, while others under `furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’. In such a situation, there

BALAJI UDYOG,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Balaji Udyog, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Jalgaon. J-81, Midc Area, Jalgaon- 425003. Pan : Aagfb2522E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay Kawadia Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit(A). Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Interest Paid To Partners Amounting To Rs.19,23,457/- U/S 40(B) Of The Act. He Specifically Erred In Law In Recasting The Capital Accounts Of The Partners On Account Of Non-Provision Of Depreciation In Books Of Account. 2) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs.1,13,286/-Being 10% Of The Various Expenses Debited To Profit & Loss Account.

section 32(1) of the IT Act held that depreciation is required to be provided in books of accounts & since the assessee failed to do so, therefore, he re-casted the capital account of the partners by reducing the amount of depreciation of earlier years and accordingly excess interest of Rs.19,23,457/- was disallowed by the Assessing Officer

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

271/[1996] 89 Taxman 311 , while interpreting the section 80-O of the Act considered. The question whether the commission retained out of the gross premium payable in foreign exchange would be eligible for deduction under section 80-C. In that context, the Apex Court has held as under: .. "The appellant instead of remitting the entire amount to the foreign

M/S. ADLER MEDIEQUIP PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, PUNE

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

depreciation on non-compete fees as per the provisions of section 32 of the Act. Set off of brought forward losses 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in not setting off carry forward losses of earlier year against the assessed income. Charge of Interest 6. On the facts

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,RAIGAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 251 of the Act vis-à-vis claim of 12 ITA No.725/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012-13 depreciation on knowhow, trademark and patents, which was allowed by the Assessing Officer. The objection of CIT(A) was that two-fold that it was neither owned nor used by the assessee and the cost of acquisition of intangible assets was also incorrectly taken

ALPHA FOAM LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -8,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1122/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Alpha Foam Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. J-172, Midc, Bhosari, Vs Pune – 411026. . Pan: Aacca 4196 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 07/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-6, Pune’S In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-6/10040/2018-19 Dated 12.06.2019, In Proceedings U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”]. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

section 271(1)(c) penalty amounting to Rs.3,41,940/- imposed by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 30.03.2018 regarding four folded disallowances of depreciation

SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD ,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), DELHI ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.255/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sas Research & The Additional / Joint / Development(India) Private Vs Deputy / Assistant Limited, Commissioner Of Income Level 1, 2A & 3, Tower 5, Tax / Income-Tax Officer, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, National E-Assessment Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. Centre, Delhi. Pan: Aaecs 8099 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal– Ar Revenue By Shri Shivraj B Moray – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Additional/Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Dated 06.04.2021For The A.Y. 2016-17 Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai, Dated 24/03/2020. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Sas Research & Development (India) Private Limited (‘Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National E- Assessment Center, Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13),144C(13),143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 6 April 2021 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 3 (‘Hon’Ble Drp’), Mumbai, Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 19 February 2021, On The Following Sas Research & Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., [A]

Section 271(l)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant assessee company filed its return of income on 29/11/2016 declaring total income of Rs.18,28,30,770/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) issued notice u/s.143(2) dated 11/09/2017. The AO made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO passed an order

NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. The Appellant requests the Hon'ble members a right to amend, alter, substitute or add to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal so as to allow

TATA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2054/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Tata Technologies Limited, The Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.25, Phase I, Rajiv Vs Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjawadi, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaactg 3092 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafana & Smt.Chandni Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Shivraj B. Moray - Dr Date Of Hearing 01/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-7, Pune Dated 30.10.2019 For The A.Y. 2015-16 U/S 143(3)Rws 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act. The Appellant Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao, Following The Directions Of The Ld. Drp, Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Tpo In Rejecting The Alp Computation Undertaken By The Appellant For Benchmarking The International Transaction Pertaining To Payment Of Commission, Thereby Making A Tp Adjustment Of Rs.5,79,53,349 In The Software Distribution Segment.

271(1 )(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings ought to be dropped 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld.AO/Ld. DRP erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AA of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings ought to be dropped” ITA No.2054/PUN/2019for