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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 02.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.50,95,69,294/- levied by AO u/s 271

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

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing so as to enable

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing so as to enable

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.

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 and in law in upholding disallowance of Rs.1,13,286/-being 10% of the various expenses debited to Profit and Loss account

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

271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.”\n\n15. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee holding that the assessee has not explained the nature of expenses and to which financial year they relate to and also the circumstances as to how the same could not be debited

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

271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2.1 Thus, Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.75 lakhs without referring to any section. Aggrieved by the same, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition stating that Assessee failed to discharges its onus that borrowed funds were utilized for creation of capital structure. Therefore, ld.CIT

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

271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 15. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee holding that the assessee has not explained the nature of expenses and to which financial year they relate to and also the circumstances as to how the same could not be debited

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

depreciation of INR 1,75,34,827 on plant and machinery on the ground that the plant and machinery were installed at customer's premises and hence were not 'put to use' in the business of the Appellant. Transfer Pricing 3. Without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal, the transfer prlcing adjustment, if any, should be restricted

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

INFOTEK NETALIA LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1004/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Infotek Netalia Ltd., V The Acit, Commerzone, I T Park, S Circle-11, Pune. Yerawada, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aabci2205B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr.Abhineet P For Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.07.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Deciding The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte Without Granting The Assessee Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Passing The Appellate Order Entirely Based On The Observations Of The Ld Ao & Without Appreciating That The Business Of The Assessee Company Was Closed & There Was No Employee To Handle The Income Tax Matters. Infotek Netalia Ltd., [A]

depreciation of Rs.82,06,191/- claimed for the first time in A Y 2012-13 on the ground that original invoices for purchase of these assets were not produced before him and did not consider the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in not appreciating that the books of account of the assessee

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

Depreciation and B Amortisation – 537,805,260 2,781,271 138,280 3,820,041 30,431,612 37,171,204 1,607,101 499,026,955 2.6A reworked B.2 Sub total Indirect 5,185,975,966 11,073,027 550,532 15,208,666 121,156,878 147,989,103 12,437,115 5,052,549,778 expenditure

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, 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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB 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

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, 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

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK 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