HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY 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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

112\nresident\nTotal\n1,78,75,505\n4,79,34,420\n1.2\nAbove mentioned amounts referred to the provisions amounts / accrued\nexpenses, 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

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

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

section 250 which he failed to do. Thus, it was a fit case where the AAC should have exercised the powers conferred upon him and taken on record the zerox copies of the cheque, the certificate from the bank and the copy of the account of the assessee with the said bank and considered the same for deciding the genuineness

VIDYA VIKAS PRATISHTAN,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Vidya Vikas Pratishtan, Vs. Assessment Unit, 72/2B, Pratap Nagar, Income Tax Department. Soregaon, Solapur- 413004. Pan : Aaatv8537F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

disallowance of Rs 1,73,56,240/- on account of receipts from incidental objects, without appreciating that such receipts comprised fees and contributions directly related to educational activities of the trust, and not commercial in nature and hence, the addition made under section 69A of the Act is factually incorrect, legally unsustainable, and deserves to be deleted in full

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE vs. BHIKSHU GRANIMART, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance of Rs.5,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 that being the discrepancy noted by the Assessing Officer between the unsecured loan of Rs 25,00,000/- received by the assessee from an individual as per the audit report and the 9 confirmation of the same by the lender which was furnished during

RAMDAS PANDHARINATH KALE,(HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 54F of the Act. The AO disallowed the balance consideration and brought to tax under the head capital gains on account of assessee’s failure to deposit the unutilized consideration for purchase of new flat in specified bank accounts in accordance with the scheme of Central Government as provided u/s. 54F of the Act. The CIT(A) though recorded

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

disallowed deduction claimed by assessee on grounds that Form 56F with respect to deduction under section 10A was filed by assessee instead of Form 56G with respect to deduction under section 10B Whether since assessee did not satisfy mandatory requirement of filing Form-56G as per section 10B(5), exemption under section 10B could not allowed - Held, yes [Para

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance of interest expenditure. He held that the reopening was beyond\nthe provisions of section 149. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld.\nCIT(A) / NFAC on this issue also being in accordance with law has to be accepted\nand the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue have to be dismissed.\n17. The Ld. Counsel