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

153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nIncome escaping assessment – issue of notice for – Assessment years 1988-\n99 to 1990-91 – Petitioner-foreign company was engaged in business of oil\nexploration and providing expertise and assistance in said field – Proceeds\nfrom manning and management contracts received by petitioner were\noriginally assessed in February, 1991 under section 143(3) treating same

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

153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nIncome escaping assessment – issue of notice for – Assessment years 1988-\n99 to 1990-91 – Petitioner-foreign company was engaged in business of oil\nexploration and providing expertise and assistance in said field – Proceeds\nfrom manning and management contracts received by petitioner were\noriginally assessed in February, 1991 under section 143(3) treating same

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

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

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

3. So far as the disallowance of Rs.3,05,36,389/- u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is concerned, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs.4,24,28,153/- which is the share of profit in firm, dividend and interest on PPF. However, the assessee has not disallowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.390,30,53,064/- after making the following disallowances to the returned income :- (a) Disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.6,46,83,703/-. (b) Disallowance of EDP (Electronic Data Processing) expenses of Rs.42,49,840/-. (c) Disallowance on Foreign Travelling Expenses – Employees of Rs.22

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 143(3), notice for reopening under material. 21. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Renu Agarwal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 578 (Allahabad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where AO disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 143(3), notice for reopening under material. 21. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Renu Agarwal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 578 (Allahabad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where AO disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 143(3), notice for reopening under material. 21. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Renu Agarwal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 578 (Allahabad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where AO disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 143(3), notice for reopening under material. 21. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Renu Agarwal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 578 (Allahabad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where AO disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 143(3), notice for reopening under material. 21. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Renu Agarwal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 578 (Allahabad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where AO disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 143(3), notice for reopening under material. 21. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Renu Agarwal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 578 (Allahabad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where AO disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 143(3), notice for reopening under material. 21. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Renu Agarwal (2023) 153 taxmann.com 578 (Allahabad), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where AO disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

disallowed the claim of Long Term Capital\nGain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and added the same\nunder section 68 of the Act.\n7. Further, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries\nregarding sale of shares have been obtained by the assessee after paying certain\ncharges i.e. commission

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

3. Less: Tax impact on account of other 32,27,62,439 retrospective amendments [e.g section 40(a)(ii) and section 36(1)(va) of Capgemini (other than sr. no. 2) 5 4. Balance MAT Credit brought forward 5,67,32,85,499 ITA No.2753/PUN/2025 [A] 2.2 Ld.AR for the Assessee relied on the following case laws : “i. Copy

UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

153(4) OF THE Act thereby making the said order invalid and bad-in-law.” Brief facts of the case : 2. In this case the assessee filed return of Income on 30/09/2015, then revised it on 26/03/2016. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. Since one of the reasons for selection of the case for scrutiny was “Large Specified Domestic

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

153 of the Act and therefore, bad in law and be struck down and annulled 4. The Ld. AD erred in passing the final assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) dated July 26, 2024 on the name of the Appellant company which has ceased to exist pursuant to the merger with Capgemini Technology Services India Limited

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE PANVEL vs. OUTABOX MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLP, GHATKOPAR MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, the same should be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 14. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC as well as the ground raised by the assessee as per Rule 27 of the Rules. He submitted that the assessee filed

ARUNKUMAR PURSHOTAMLAL KHANNA,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CIRCLE), PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.181/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Arunkumar Purshotamlal Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. Khanna, Flat No.3123/3124, Clover Palisades, Nibm Road, Kondhwa, Pune- 411048. Pan : Agipk3043K Appellant Respondent

disallow the same in his section 143(3) regular assessment dated 14.12.2017 thereby not making any addition in returned income amounting to Rs.7,76,60,770/-. 3. The PCIT thereafter sought to invoke its 263 revision jurisdiction on the ground that the above stated regular assessment was an erroneous one causing prejudice interest of the Revenue. He issued his show

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." 6. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to s. 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, reopening could be done under the above two conditions and fulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

3)\nRs.1,78,97,091/-\nii.\nShort disallowance u/s.40(a)\niii.\nICDS Adjustment Not disclosed\niv.\nDisallowance u/s 14A\nV.\nLiquidated damages written back\nvi.\nProject Provision Costs written back\nRs.1,11,75,451/-\nRs.7,51,15,458/-\nRs.11,37,098/-\nRs.2,02,56,631/-\nRs.36,87,805/-\nvii.\nReversal of Provision for Doubtful Debts\nRs.2,94,96,845/-\nviii