HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

112 taxmann.com 323 as well as the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd (supra) is squarely applicable. Therefore, we hold that the disallowance of Rs.1,20,60,460/- as made by the AO as confirmed by the CIT(A) is incorrect in law, as the AO had failed to record

SHANKAR KASHINATH KADAM,,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Shankar Kashinath Kadam, Hingagaon Road, Kavthemahankal, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Sangli - 416405 …. Pan: Aumpk8234G Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 2(3), Sangli

disallowance of Rs.2,29,56,838/- under S. 40(a)(ia) being transport charges paid u/s 194C(7) of the Act on mere change of opinion. The addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is invalid and without jurisdiction. It be quashed.” 3. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had filed return

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

112 resident Total 1,78,75,505 4,79,34,420 1.2 Above mentioned amounts referred to the provisions amounts / accrued expenses, hence disallowed under section

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

disallowance of health and education cess are concerned, the DRP upheld the action of the AO / TPO. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the AO / TPO / DRP, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: That on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law; Legal Grounds 1. The impugned order

SHREE RAM CARGO PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(5), PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SHANKAR SHET ROAD, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1568/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Ram Cargo Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(5), 3-A & B, Archies Court, Pune Shankar Shet Road, Pune 411 037 Maharashtra Pan : Aalcs3844A Appellant Respondent

section. However w.e.f. 1.10.2009 in case of payment made for plying, hiring or leasing goods carriage disallowance is to be made if the payment made is in excess of Rs.35,000/- otherwise by way of account payee cheque or account payee draft. It is seen that the only relief provided for assesse engaged in the business of plying, hiring

JOSHIRAO ENGINEERING ,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

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

section 143(1)(a)(iv) by disallowing delayed payment of Employee contribution to EPF, ESI and other Welfare fund amounting to Rs. 18,39,112

NIRMAL JYOT FACILITIES P LTD,KARAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

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

section 143(1)(a)(iv) by disallowing delayed payment of Employee contribution to EPF, ESI and other Welfare fund amounting to Rs. 18,39,112

CAPITAL CONSTRUCTIONS,NASHIK vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

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

section 143(1)(a)(iv) by disallowing delayed payment of Employee contribution to EPF, ESI and other Welfare fund amounting to Rs. 18,39,112

NIRMAL JYOT FACILITIES P LTD,KARAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

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

section 143(1)(a)(iv) by disallowing delayed payment of Employee contribution to EPF, ESI and other Welfare fund amounting to Rs. 18,39,112

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

112 taxmann.com 323 as well as the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of 18 Pr.CIT vs. Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we hold that the disallowance of Rs.7,81,83,703/- as made by the AO deleted by the ld. CIT(A) is correct

FORBES MARSHALL PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 352 & 353/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. A-34/35, “H” Block, Midc Industrial Estate, Pimpri, Pune-400 018. Pan : Aaacf2630E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without prejudice to one another: 1. The learned CIT(A)-6, Pune, erred in law and on facts, in particularly sustaining certain disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the ITA, 1961 made by the learned ACIT, Range

FORBES MARSHALL PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 352 & 353/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. A-34/35, “H” Block, Midc Industrial Estate, Pimpri, Pune-400 018. Pan : Aaacf2630E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without prejudice to one another: 1. The learned CIT(A)-6, Pune, erred in law and on facts, in particularly sustaining certain disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the ITA, 1961 made by the learned ACIT, Range

FORBES MARSHALL PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 352 & 353/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Forbes Marshall Pvt. Ltd. A-34/35, “H” Block, Midc Industrial Estate, Pimpri, Pune-400 018. Pan : Aaacf2630E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the following amongst other grounds each of which is in the alternative and without prejudice to one another: 1. The learned CIT(A)-6, Pune, erred in law and on facts, in particularly sustaining certain disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the ITA, 1961 made by the learned ACIT, Range

YARDI SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JURISDICTION CIRCLE 12, PUNE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.549/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Yardi Software India Private Vs. Acit, Circle-12, Pune. Limited, Second Floor, Sigma House, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune City, Pune, Shivaji Housing Society S.O.- 411016. Pan : Aaccr8107N Appellant Respondent

112 Mumbai, wherein under similar circumstances and identical facts the Tribunal has deleted the addition made by the CPC under section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act. Accordingly learned AR requested before the bench to delete the addition so made by CPC and confirmed by Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) without considering the specific grounds raised before him. Alternatively

KALYANI STEELS LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

The appeal of the assesse is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kalyani Steels Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mundhwa, Vs. Income-Tax Circle-14, Pune – 411 036 Aaykarsadan, Bodhi Tower, 548/2B, Salisbury Park, Gultekdi, Pune – 411 037. Pan No. Aaack7315D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 254 of the said Act. This means that in Goetze (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was not dealing with the extent of the powers of the appellate authorities but the observations were in relation to the powers of the assessing authority. This is the distinction drawn by the division Bench in Pruthvi Brokers (supra) as well and this

WINJIT TECHNOLOGIES P LTD,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.204/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Winjit Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-1, C1/1, A Road Nice, Midc, Nashik Satpur, Nashik – 422 007 Maharashtra Pan : Aaacw5333M Appellant Respondent

112/- in the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act on the ground that the assessee late deposited the employees’ share of EPF and ESI etc. The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the disallowance. 4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen as an admitted position that the assessee did deduct employees

NIRAJ KUMAR ASSOCIATES PVT.LIMITED,,PASHAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

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

112 taxmann.com 322 (SC) - (SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed exempt income of relevant

KLAUS MULTIPARKING SYSTEM PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed and the appeal relating to assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.308 & 309/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. We direct the Assessing Officer to delete disallowance of ₹ 1,97,738/-. Hence, the grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee are thus, allowed. 11. The issue in ground of appeal No.3 raised by the assessee is against disallowance of expenses incurred on account of increase in share capital