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

271 (Bom.) holding that income tax paid in Saudi Arabia was allowable as deduction in computing the income under the provisions of the Act as the same was not taken benefit of by the assessee either under section 90 or 91 of the Act. This position stands accepted by the legislature as is manifest from the insertion of Explanation 1

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

271 (Bom.) holding that income tax paid in Saudi Arabia was allowable as deduction in computing the income under the provisions of the Act as the same was not taken benefit of by the assessee either under section 90 or 91 of the Act. This position stands accepted by the legislature as is manifest from the insertion of Explanation 1

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

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

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

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

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)

1), Pune ('Ld. AO') under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), not appreciating that the adjustment of loss in the calculation of mistake apparent from record. The Appellant prays that the rectification order under section 154 of the Act be treated as bad in law, null and void and therefore the same be quashed. 2. Ground

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)

1), Pune ('Ld. AO') under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), not appreciating that the adjustment of loss in the calculation of mistake apparent from record. The Appellant prays that the rectification order under section 154 of the Act be treated as bad in law, null and void and therefore the same be quashed. 2. Ground

INTERVALVE POONAWALLA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

depreciation of Rs.89,42,896/- which is the subject matter for levy of penalty. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC restricted the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs.1,82,234/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He noted that the assessee

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

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

MITHI SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2371/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mithi Software Technologies V The Income Tax Private Limited, S Officer, 101, Mayfair Court, Nachiket Ward-14(3), Pune. Park, Baner Road, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aabcm9352P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Agra Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 25.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of

section 28(iv) and 41(1) simultaneously, which are mutually exclusive in nature. iv. The addition sustained by the CIT(A) is not justified, based on mere presumptions and surmises, and therefore needs to be deleted. Ground No.2 : In confirming the AO’s action of not allowing set-off of brought forward business loss of Rs 1

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

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

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

1)(ii) of the Act, which talked about know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, license, franchise, etc. Further goodwill was also not covered by the expression „any other business or commercial rights‟ of similar nature. The CIT(A) thus, denied the depreciation on goodwill and non-compete fees. Further, during the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) issued enhancement notice

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(2),, PUNE vs. JAGTAP PATIL PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.35/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Jagtap Patil Promoters & Ward-8(2), Pune. Vs Builders, S.No.152, Pimple Gurav, Pune – 411061. Pan: Aagfj 0403 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suniol Ganoo – Ar Revenue By Shri M.M.Chate – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Pune For The A.Y. 2014-15 Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)- 6, Pune Dated 04.10.2017 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30/12/2016 Passed By The Ito Ward 8(2) Pune U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Not Appreciating That It Was Only After Scrutiny Proceedings Started That The Assessee Paid The Mat. Thus By Filing Nil Return & Not Claiming Deduction U/S 80Ib(10) The Assessee Was Trying To Evade Payment Of Taxes. The Claim Of The Assessee That Filing Of Nil Return Was Clerical Error Does Not Hold Ground? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Not Appreciating The Ratio Laid

271(1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance. However, the assessee’s Authorised representative attended on 19/12/2016, just 14 days before the time barring date for the assessment order. It was noted by the AO that assessee had shown NIL Income, Nil tax payable in the return. However, the AR vide written submission dated 19/12/2016, ITA No.35/PUN/2018for

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged at rate of 30% over and above regular income of assessee. It has been established that deduction/exemption