SURESH CHUNNILAL SHARMA,,PARBHANI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - PARBHANI,, PARBHANI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1883/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 14. Turning to the facts of the instant case, it is found as an admitted position that the assessee as well as the seller of the plots had bank accounts at the material time and still the transaction was carried out in violation of section

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

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

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

3) read with 154 of the Act dated 11 January 2023 but disallowed vide the impugned rectification order is debatable due to various reasons and thereby, making the impugned rectification order bad-in-law and liable to be quashed; Merits: Allowability of claim for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act - Rs. 5,80,64,205 5. erred

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

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

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

3) read with 154 of the Act dated 11 January 2023 but disallowed vide the impugned rectification order is debatable due to various reasons and thereby, making the impugned rectification order bad-in-law and liable to be quashed; Merits: Allowability of claim for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act - Rs. 5,80,64,205 5. erred

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowed the same by holding as under- "It would be pertinent to mention here that the above assessed loss of Rs.73,24,3051- is inclusive of Depreciation loss of Rs. 12,69,0741-. Further, under the circumstances that the return of income was not filed within the stipulated time limit as detailed in section 139(1) of the Act, only

DNYANESHWAR SHINDE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed the relief under section 89 and held that the amount/ compensation received by the assessee in full and final settlement on voluntary retirement is taxable as profits in lieu of salary under the provisions of section 17(3)(i) of the Act. Perusal of the CIT(A)’s order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the order

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

14 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 ―Interpretation of provision of s.40(a)(ii) of IT Act, 1961- Clarification regarding 18/05/1967 BUSINESS EXPENDITURE SECTION 40(a)(ii), Recently a case has come to the notice of the Board where the ITO has disallowed the ‗cess‘ paid by the assessee on the ground that there has been no material change

VIRENDRA SINGH SAINI,HARYANA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, BENGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

3) of the Act. He, however, accentuated the fact that the instant batch of appeals involves the disallowance made u/s.143(1) of the Act. It was argued that no prima facie adjustment can be made in the Intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act unless a case is covered within the specific four corners of the provision

NAVALMAL FIRODIA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: the learned CIT(A), the same has neither been taken note of or distinguished in any manner. Not following the binding Judicial precedent of the Jurisdictional ITAT Pune is gross impropriety in law. Ground No. 2: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”

Disallowance of Rs. 6,00,000/-. a) The learned ADDLN/JCIT (5), Delhi (CIT-A) erred in law and of facts in confirming the action of learned CPC of adding back Rs.6,00,000 to the total income of the Appellant by invoking the 2 provisions of sub clause (c) of Section 11(3) r.w.s 115BBI

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

disallowance is merited under section 10AA of the Act. The basic condition for application of the said provisions of the Act are an arrangement between the parties, which is so arranged as to enable the assessee to earn super normal profits. The TPO/Assessing Officer/DRP has not pointed out any such arrangement whatsoever between the assessee and the comparable companies selected

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

disallowance is merited under section 10AA of the Act. The basic condition for application of the said provisions of the Act are an arrangement between the parties, which is so arranged as to enable the assessee to earn super normal profits. The TPO/Assessing Officer/DRP has not pointed out any such arrangement whatsoever between the assessee and the comparable companies selected

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

disallowance of Rs.66,20,000/- on account of violation of provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC quashed the re-assessment proceedings, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue. Admittedly

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.

3) vide order dated 30.03.2015 at a total income of Rs.146,32,01,943/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D of Rs.1,20,60,460/- and also made disallowance of Rs.113,15,18,134/- u/s 10B(7) r.w.s. 80IA. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, an appeal was filed before

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.

3) vide order dated 30.03.2015 at a total income of Rs.146,32,01,943/-. While doing so, the AO made disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D of Rs.1,20,60,460/- and also made disallowance of Rs.113,15,18,134/- u/s 10B(7) r.w.s. 80IA. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, an appeal was filed before

MARUTI KESHAVRAO DIDHORE,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia). It postulates that while qualifying the\namount to be made out of own sweet will, it had claimed the same\nas expenditure. In such a situation, failure to bring this\ncompensation to tax and granting total exemption treating it as a\ncapital receipt would result in double jeopardy to the exchequer. This\ntest of applicability

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

disallowing the interest expenditure claimed\nin the returns amounting to Rs.1,97,159/- and further, Ld, Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the same.\n9.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary or delete any of the\naforesaid grounds.\n9.\nThe assessee has also filed an additional ground in ITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nwhich reads as under

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

disallowing the interest expenditure claimed\nin the returns amounting to Rs.1,97,159/- and further, Ld, Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the same.\n9.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary or delete any of the\naforesaid grounds.\n9.\nThe assessee has also filed an additional ground in ITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nwhich reads as under

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

disallowance under section 14A of the Act was not warranted. Levy of interest 14. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of the Act.‖ 3

M/S. SHARADA PAPER COMPANY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (4),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1547/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S.Sharada Paper Company, The Income Tax Officer, 436/8, Narayan Peth, Vs Ward-11(4), Pune. Maharashtra – 411030. Pan: Aaffs 1470 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Dated 18.07.2019 Arising Out Of Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.03.2013. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Withdrawal Of Claim For The Carry Forward Of Loss For A.Y. 2003-04, A.Y. 2004-05, A.Y.2005-06 & A.Y.2006- 07 Without Verifying The Facts. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Rectification Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 154 & Thereby Withdrawing Loss Allowed In The Assessment Made Under Section 143(3) Of Income Taxact,1961 Without Appreciating The Fact That This Is Not Mistake Apparent From Records & Hence Cannot Be Rectified Under 154 Of The Act.

3 of Section 139 is the successor of sub- section (2A) of Section 22 of the 1922 Act, there can be no denial to the fact that section 80 of the 1961 Act was not there. Section 80 begins with a non-obstante clause. Section 80 finds place in Chapter VI. The assessee obviously is seeking to get benefit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. BIZ SECURE LABS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sonjoy Sarma"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Biz Secure Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 1206, Sadashiv Peth, Circle- 1(1), Pune 411 030 Pune Pan : Aadcb6188L Appellant Respondent

disallowance of the excess deduction u/s 80IC at this level. Though, the AO had initially referred to sub-section (10) of section 80IA, but later on left it from consideration, which was a right decision, since the sub-section (10) has no application to the facts of the case. During the course of the first appellate proceedings, the assessee raised