SUDHAKAR BAJIRAO SHISODE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2780/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

150 declared in the return filed for A.Y. 2018-19. Subsequently, based on the information received from Risk Management Strategy, the reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee were carried out. Certain details were submitted by the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings. However, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the proceedings disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.80C

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. NITIN DWARKADAS NYATI, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Acit, Central Circle 2(3), Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati Pune Sr. No.103/129, Nyati Unitree, Vs. Yerwada, Nagar Road, Pune – 411006 Pan: Aabpn2601F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krishna V Gujarathi Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2025 O R D E R

section 14A of the Act. It is also his submission that the disallowance, if any, u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should be applicable only to such expenditure which may have any nexus with earning exempt income and not extend the disallowance to expenses having direct relation to earning taxable income. 11. We find some force in the above arguments

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

150 taxmann.com 20 (Chennai - Trib.) III. Proposition 3: If an Application for Registration is not disposed off within 6 months, then same isdeemed to be accepted/approved, in terms of section 12AA(2). Sardari Lai Oberoi memorial Charitable Trust v. ITO [2005] 3 SOT 229 (Delhi)] SambandhOrganisation v. CIT [(2006) 156 Taxman 183 (Delhi)] 5 Pune Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual

ATUL SHASHIKANT GARBHE ,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowed as claimed in ITR. Penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the IT Act are being initiated separately for under-reporting of income on account of claiming wrong relief under section 89 of the I.T.Act thereby reducing the tax liability which resulted issuance of refund. Total income of the assessee is recomputed as under: Income declared as per Return Rs.82

SHRI SAI ARIHANT NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHEDNAGAR, AHEMDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.721/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sai Arihant Nagari Sahakari The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Ltd., V Ward-1, Ahmednagar. A/P.Shirdi Tal Rahata, S Ahmednagar – 423109. Pan: Aaabs0599Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Smt.Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] For A.Y.2014-15 Dated 11.03.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Rs1,23,06,150/- In Respect Of Npa Expenditure.

disallowance of Rs1,23,06,150/- in respect of NPA Expenditure. 2. The ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in denying the deduction claimed under Section

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

150/-. No disallowance was offered by the assessee u/s.14A of the Act. After recording proper satisfaction, the AO went on to compute the amount disallowable u/s.14A r.w. rule 8D(2)(iii) at 0.50% of the average value of investments. Such disallowance came to Rs.12,46,250/-, which was confirmed in the first appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come

BIZ SECURE LABS PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, 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

150/-. No disallowance was offered by the assessee u/s.14A of the Act. After recording proper satisfaction, the AO went on to compute the amount disallowable u/s.14A r.w. rule 8D(2)(iii) at 0.50% of the average value of investments. Such disallowance came to Rs.12,46,250/-, which was confirmed in the first appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come

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

150/-. No disallowance was offered by the assessee u/s.14A of the Act. After recording proper satisfaction, the AO went on to compute the amount disallowable u/s.14A r.w. rule 8D(2)(iii) at 0.50% of the average value of investments. Such disallowance came to Rs.12,46,250/-, which was confirmed in the first appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come

BHARAT FORGE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1),, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2011- 12. The Tribunal decided this issue in favour of assessee by observing as under : “16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue before us is vis-à-vis weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The assessee had recognized

BHARAT FORGE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1),, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2011- 12. The Tribunal decided this issue in favour of assessee by observing as under : “16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue before us is vis-à-vis weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The assessee had recognized

BHARAT FORGE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2011- 12. The Tribunal decided this issue in favour of assessee by observing as under : “16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue before us is vis-à-vis weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The assessee had recognized

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO LIQUIDHUB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 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 Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

disallowed under section 40(a)(ii) of the IT Act, before the retrospective amendment proposed by Finance Act 2022 Jaipuria Samla Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 580 (SC) Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd v JCIT (ITA No. 52/2018) Sesa Goa Lid v JOIT (2020) 117 taxmann.com 96 DCIT v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company

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

BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

section. The procedure for calculation of 10% of average rural 10 advances made by rural branches has been prescribed under Rule GABA of the Income Tax Rules 1962. Bank was having 515 rural branches as on 31 March 2018. Accordingly, the advances of such branches had been considered for calculation of eligibility, which were verified/audited by branch statutory auditors

MAHAVIR FLEET OPERATORS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotemahavir Fleet Operators Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Gat No. 1349, Khandvenagar, Of Income Tax, Wagholi, Pune – 412307 Circle – 11(2), Pune Vs. Pan : Aafcm9834N

section 40A(3) disallowance made in both the lower proceedings involving a sum of Rs.23,10,000/-. A perusal of assessment findings in Para No. 4.1 suggests that the main figure of Rs.15,69,530/- involves M/s. M D Ballorgi. Learned counsel sought to clarify that the assessee’s transportation fleet is almost of 150

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

PARNA VASUDEVAIAH,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & 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