M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

127 of the Act.\"\n7.1.9 Assessee has relied upon the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case\nof Heart Foundation of India vs CIT in which it has been held that PCIT\nCentral has no jurisdiction to decide about the issue of registration u/s\n12AA of the Income Tax Act. In this regard, it is brought on record that\nthe

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 under section 36(1)(va) of the Act 13 The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act on arbitrary premise that there is under-reporting of income done by the Appellant The above grounds are without prejudice to each other The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw

BALKRISHNA RATHI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

127 & 136, Amralewadi Ambadvet Taluka Mulshi, Belawade Mulshi, Pune – 412108. Maharashtra. PAN: AAACB7443H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by Shri Ambarnath Khule-JCIT(Through Virtual Hearing) Date of hearing 26/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1296/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Leelavati Vijaykumar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Kotecha, 2(1), Nashik. 4, Teachers Colony, Ring Road, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Alvpk4435H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case Vide Ita Nos.1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13, Order Dated 26.04.2018 Had Adjudicated The Issue Ex-Parte & Dismissed The Above Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, On Miscellaneous

127 was passed. Without prejudice to the above and alternatively under protest: 3. On facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in making routine additions / disallowances in assessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 144 in the absence of any incriminating material and without appreciating the fact that original assessment made u/s 143(1)(a) which

VANAZ ENGINEERS LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -7,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1959/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vanaz Engineers Limited, 85/1, Paud Road, Pune-411 038. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacv6873B बनाम / V/S. Addl. Cit, Range- 7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 5, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Vanaz Engineers Limited (‘The Appellant’), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Dated 12Th May, 2017 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 5 ['Cit(A)’], Pune (Received By The Appellant On 20Th June, 2017) Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) On The Following Grounds Which Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Has:

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: 6. erred in not giving a specific direction to the learned AO with respect to the disallowance of freight expenses amounting to Rs. 10,68,127

PANDURANG DAYANAND HIREMATH,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.520/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

disallowance made under section 40A(3) of the Act at ₹ 26,80,721/-. 4. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any application was moved for adjournment and because of smallness of the issue, present appeal is decided after hearing the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. 3 Pandurang Dayanand Hiremath 5. Briefly, in the facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE

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

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

disallowance of expenses incurred for unrestricted educational grant provided to IFMER, by holding that the said grants were utilized for the purpose of providing freebies to the healthcare professionals such as travel, stay, etc. which are prohibited as per The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct. Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (MCI Regulations) and not deductible under Explanation 1 to section

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE

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

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

disallowance of expenses incurred for unrestricted educational grant provided to IFMER, by holding that the said grants were utilized for the purpose of providing freebies to the healthcare professionals such as travel, stay, etc. which are prohibited as per The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct. Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (MCI Regulations) and not deductible under Explanation 1 to section

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE

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

disallowance of expenses incurred for unrestricted\neducational grant provided to IFMER, by holding that the said grants were\nutilized for the purpose of providing freebies to the healthcare professionals\nsuch as travel, stay, etc. which are prohibited as per The Indian Medical\nCouncil (Professional Conduct. Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (MCI\nRegulations) and not deductible under Explanation 1 to section

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

127, 218 Taxman 45 are not applicable to the case of the appellant. Section 43 (5) ―43 In sections 28 to 41 and in this section unless context otherwise requires- (1)……. (5) ―speculation transaction‖ means transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

127, 218 Taxman 45 are not applicable to the case of the appellant. Section 43 (5) ―43 In sections 28 to 41 and in this section unless context otherwise requires- (1)……. (5) ―speculation transaction‖ means transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

127, 218 Taxman 45 are not applicable to the case of the appellant. Section 43 (5) ―43 In sections 28 to 41 and in this section unless context otherwise requires- (1)……. (5) ―speculation transaction‖ means transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than

SAHYADRI KARAD HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

127/-, as disallowed in both the lower proceedings. 3 ITA.Nos.562 & 563/PUN./2024 4. We note in this factual backdrop that the learned lower appellate authority has upheld the CPC's action proceedings disallowing the assessee unabsorbed depreciation carried forward claim in A.Y. 2019-2020 as under : “The claim of the appellant that brought forward losses of the previous years