DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CARRARO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

disallowable under the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act by citing the following reasons : (i) Though these services were rendered by the overseas agents outside India, the commission becomes payable to the agent only after the purchase order is placed and executed in India. It is therefore clear that the source of income for the agent

CARRORO INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

disallowable under the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act by citing the following reasons : (i) Though these services were rendered by the overseas agents outside India, the commission becomes payable to the agent only after the purchase order is placed and executed in India. It is therefore clear that the source of income for the agent

PRABHAT GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATNSANSTHA MARYADIT TADWADI,RAIGAD vs. ITO, WARD 3, PANVEL

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

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

section 143(3) is wide enough to disallow the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act at the time of completing the assessment and it is not an adjustment contemplated u/s 143(1)(a)(v) of the Act. (iii) There is no need for again giving an opportunity of being heard as regards the disallowance of deduction

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

disallowances made by the learned AO and TPO and upheld by the learned DRP be deleted. ITA No.227/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14(A) Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before

SOLAPUR DIST M S K SAMITI H MASTER T AND N T PATH MYDT PANDHARPUR,PANDHARPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H The Income Tax Officer, Master T & N T Path V Ward-2, Pandharapur. Mydtpandharpur, S 3980, Station Road, Pandharpur. Maharashtra – 413304. Pan: Aanas9890E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2024 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(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.05.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2019Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Assessee Was In Presumption That Co Operative Societies Income Is Exempt Under 80P Generally Maximum Co Solapur Dist M S K Samiti H Master T & N T Path Mydt Pandharpur [A]

disallowed the deduction u/s SOP on the basis of section 80AC of income Tax Act 1961. But our case relates to AY 2017-18. And Section 80AC was amended wef 01.04.2018 prospectively. 14. We also keep reliance on the following cases also where deduction under section 80P was allowed even if Return was not filed or filed in response

BIRLASOFT LTD,(EARLIER KNOWN AS KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 14A should not be invoked to work out the disallowance under Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules” for short). In response to the said show cause, the assessee submitted its written submissions on 23-3-2016 which is reproduced by the A.O in his order at page 3 to 11. Considering the said written submissions

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]

disallowance of INR 4,50,70,798 under u/s 14A of the Act r.w rule 8D(2)(ii) be deleted. Ground 10: Additional relief under section 90 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the AU based on the directions of Ld. DRP erred in disregarding Appellant’s claim for additional relief under section

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 6. As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No.29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.” In view of the above decision

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 6. As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No.29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.” In view of the above decision

WIRTGEN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Wirtgen India Private Limited Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru Gate No.301, 302, Bhandagaon Khor Vs. Road, Taluka Daund, Dist. Pune – 412214 Pan: Aaacw2816R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Prakash L Pathade, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-07-2025 O R D E R

disallowance of Rs.12,69,969/- on account of delay in deposit of employees’ contribution to PF and ESI. Since the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a delay of 622 days, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal on account of delay. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time

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

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

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance in terms of section 80IB(10)(e) and 80IB(10)(f) of the Act. On a pointed query by the Bench as to whether the application dated 06.07.2012 for project R-5, application dated 26.06.2012 for project R-22 and application dated 04.07.2012 for R-4 were filed before the Assessing Officer or not, the Ld. Counsel

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance in terms of section 80IB(10)(e) and 80IB(10)(f) of the Act. On a pointed query by the Bench as to whether the application dated 06.07.2012 for project R-5, application dated 26.06.2012 for project R-22 and application dated 04.07.2012 for R-4 were filed before the Assessing Officer or not, the Ld. Counsel

INCOME TAX OFFICERV(EXEMPTION) WARD 2, PUNE vs. CREDIA PUNE METRO , PUNE

disallowed in the corresponding assessments but accepted in part to the extent of “mutuality” benefit only in the CIT(A)’s order. The Revenue’s endeavour in both of its cross appeals is that the assessee nowhere fulfil the three monetary conditions of being a “mutual” organization in light of Bangalore Club

CREDAI - PUNE METRO,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE

disallowed in the corresponding assessments but accepted in part to the extent of “mutuality” benefit only in the CIT(A)’s order. The Revenue’s endeavour in both of its cross appeals is that the assessee nowhere fulfil the three monetary conditions of being a “mutual” organization in light of Bangalore Club

INCOME TAX OFFICERV(EXEMPTION) WARD 2, PUNE vs. CREDIA METRO PUNE, PUNE

disallowed in the corresponding assessments but accepted in part to the extent of “mutuality” benefit only in the CIT(A)’s order. The Revenue’s endeavour in both of its cross appeals is that the assessee nowhere fulfil the three monetary conditions of being a “mutual” organization in light of Bangalore Club

CREDAI-PUNE METRO,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, PUNE

disallowed in the corresponding assessments but accepted in part to the extent of “mutuality” benefit only in the CIT(A)’s order. The Revenue’s endeavour in both of its cross appeals is that the assessee nowhere fulfil the three monetary conditions of being a “mutual” organization in light of Bangalore Club

SHREE DATTA NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,SANGLI vs. ITO WARD-5, SANGLI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 (ITA

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

138 (Guj.) which have been rendered post amendment to section 80P vide Finance Act, 2015 rejected the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i)/ 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Further relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secunderabad Club Vs. CIT (2023) 457 ITR 263 (SC) wherein the issue