DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. RATHI STEEL AND METAL PVT. LTD, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Rathi Steel & Metal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.F12, Addl Midc Area, Phase-Ii, Vs. Jalna – 431203 Pan : Aabcr5546A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

133(6) are not complied. Detailed investigation is already made in this case. The demand for calling the record from GST department is made at the fag end of the assessment proceedings. It is clear that GST department has searched these three persons and investigation is under progress. Moreover GST department has also raided on the assessee in pursuance with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

disallow the purchases.\n14. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the\norders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed by both\nsides. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides.\nWe find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of\nRs.11

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

disallowing it in the hands of the assessee would amount to double taxation. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted the major portion of the addition, sustaining only 2% as commission income.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "133A", "133(6

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

133/- he made disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) at Rs.26,39,84,698/-. 3.1 Subsequently, the PCIT examined the record and noted that the AO has allowed deduction u/s.10AA of the Act at Rs.263,46,37,168/-. He noted that in the earlier years, i.e. for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17 such claim of deduction u/s.10AA was disallowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD., JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

disallow the purchases. 14. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed by both sides. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.11

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

section 147 of the Act as on the basis of the facts of the case the AO had the basis to believe that claim of exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act in the return of income was not allowable. 11. Keeping in view above facts and discussion, it is held that the AO has drawn his satisfaction

R. K. WINES,PEN vs. ITO, WARD 4, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (2), has not been\nregularly followed by the assessee.\nIt is submitted that none of the above-mentioned twin conditions\nprescribed by u/s 145(3) are attracted in the present case.\n3.5 The appellant accordingly prays that the rejection of book results\nu/s 145(3) is not justified and the said action may kindly not be upheld.\nGround

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

133(6) of the Act. Replies received from those companies were placed on record. After examining those details the Assessing Officer has passed the order. Referring to the copy of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer which were supplied to the assessee and placed at pages 39 and 40 of the paper book, he submitted that in the reasons

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

133(6) of the Act was issued to the assessee on the basis of internal audit party objections, copy of which is placed at pages 391 and 392 of the paper book. A perusal of the same shows that it was issued with prior approval of the PCIT. We find the assessee in response to the same filed the requisite

ADIVASI UNNATI SEVA MANDAL,RAJUR DISTRICT AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

section 115BBC. 4.2 So, considering the above discussion, submission made by the assesse and replies of the letter u/s 133(6), 40% of total donation of Rs. 1,27,86,243/- amounting to Rs.51,14,500/- are hereby treated as anonymous donation u/s 115BBC and accordingly taxed. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A(9)(d) are initiated separately for misreporting of income

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

133 (Pune - Trib.) [26-12-2024] 5 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited 6. Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar Vs. (ITO ITA Nos. 2131 & 2132/PUN/2024) [18-02-2025] 7. Schneider Electric Southeast Asia (11Q) Pte. Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 145 taxmann.com 665 (Delhi HC) [28-03-2022) 6. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order

NINAD ARUN DIWAKAR,NASHIK vs. ITO, ACIT CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1318/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ninad Arun Diwakar, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.F-98, Midc, S Acti Circle-1, Nashik. Satpur Nashik – 422007. Pan: Ahepd7516M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sarang Gudhate Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2025 For The A.Y.2022-23 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

6. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before ld.CIT(A) : 5 ITA No.1318/PUN/2025 [A] “i) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law the Ld.Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing the deduction of Rs.7,97,15,590/- out of the deposit of Rs. 8,00,00,000/- with State Bank

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE vs. DIPTI NARENDRA LULLA, PUNE

133(6) of the Act to the creditors. In this regard the appellant has\nrelied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt.\nLtd. In SLP (Civil) No. 29855 of 2018 dated 5.03.2019 wherein the Hon'ble Court\nheld that AO would be justified in drawing an adverse inference

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

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A are hereby initiated for underreporting of income.” 4. Similarly, from the audit report filed by the assessee in form 3CB the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has taken several unsecured loans during the year. He issued notices u/s 133(6

ARISTON GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC AND THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1680/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ariston Group India Private The Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department, 1St Floor, Office No.103, V National Faceless Mayfai Tower, Wakdewadi, S. Assessment Centre, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. Delhi(“Nfac”), The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Pan: Aaoca7042D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 18.06.2024 For A.Y.2020- 21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ariston Group India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ariston India' Or 'The Appellant) Prefers An Appeal For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Against

6. Aggrieved by the order of the TPO/DRP/AO, the Assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal. We have already reproduced the relevant paragraphs of the Transfer Pricing Officer’s Order and DRP’s Order. The main contention of the TPO/DRP is that assessee has not demonstrated that the services have been availed. However, the TPO has accepted that Assessee

SHREESOMNIDHI INFRASOLUTIONS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

133(6) to M/s SEZ Biotech Services Pvt Ltd on 27.02.2024 for furnishing the requisite details. In response to the same, M/s SEZ Biotech Services Pvt Ltd has provided only ledger of the appellant. No other documents such as return of income, Bank statement and other financial has been submitted neither the appellant nor M/s SEZ Biotech Services

SHRI CHHATRAPATI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KHARKHANA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE

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

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

133(6) of the Act from Union Bank of India that during the relevant AY, the assessee received an aggregate amount of Rs.1,95,65,389/- from Dyaneshwari Multi Urban Co- operative Society reflected as credit entries in its said bank account, the details of which are reproduced in para 4.3 of the reassessment order, the Ld. AO completed

M/S. GORDHANSINGH S RAJPUROHIT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PANVEL

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

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

133(6).  The Ld. CIT(A) not considered the facts that the Hon’ble ITAT deleted the adhoc additions fully in similar cases. We relied on the following judgments of the higher forum :-  Income Tax Appeal No 1004 of 2016 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in case of The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V.s Mohammad Haji

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A of the Act. These decisions, therefore, limited their observations to the applicability of Section 14A of the Act on dividend income. Also, the G&B HC decision and the G&B SC decision have not laid down any principle contrary to those laid down by the Hon'ble SC in Tata Tea decision