BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANACE LTD,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowed by the A.O. We find that in the order of the Tribunal (supra) it has been clearly mentioned that the A.O has to adjudicate the issue in the light of the Special Bench decision Bangalore whereas the A.O has gone beyond and has tried to distinguish the judgment itself along with other cases which is not in accordance with

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

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

section 40(a)(ia). He\nfurther submitted that from the books of account of the asssessee it was established\nthat these were actual expenses incurred during AY 2017-18 and not the\n\"provisions for expenses” on which TDS was not deducted. He submitted that the\nassessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence that TDS was deducted during\nthe assessment

MAHAVIR ADINATH SALVE,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, SOLAPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.441/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Mahavir Adinath Salve, The Ito, Ward-1(1), Solapur. House No.930, Nagane Plot Vs Paranda Road, Barshi, . Solapur – 413411. Pan: Arxps 5761 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri V L Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 15.11.2018 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Cir- 1/0804/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

193, 194A, 194D, 194DA, 1941, 194K. However, in respect of section 1941 which is applicable to the rent payable on land, building, equipment and machinery has been inserted only by the Finance Act, 2016 w. e. f. 01.06.2016. The appellant’s case relates to AY 2008-09 and therefore, the same is not applicable to the appellant’s case. Therefore

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3),, PUNE vs. SUBHASH & B.T. PATIL & SONS & N.V.KHAROTE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee vide its submissions dated 26.03.2010 and 06.09.2010, explained the difference between revenue sharing arrangement entered into by the joint venture visa-vis sub- contract. It was explained on behalf of the assessee that in the case of sub-contract, there was a relationship of principal and agent whereas

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 :

193 ITR 321/60 Taxman 248 the respondent's appeal was allowed. 6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue urges that the decision of the Apex Court in Radhasoami Satsang (supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case for two reasons viz. (a) that the decision itself states that it is restricted to the facts

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

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

193/- (Rs.2,19,43,763/- - Rs.1,18,53,570/-) being 0.5% of average value of investments. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee has shown corporate overhead allocation of Rs.1,13,01,195/- for property income which requires to be disallowed and the computation does not reflect the correct allocation of the expenses were exempt income. According

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14 (5),, PUNE

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

193/- (Rs.2,19,43,763/- - Rs.1,18,53,570/-) being 0.5% of average value of investments. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee has shown corporate overhead allocation of Rs.1,13,01,195/- for property income which requires to be disallowed and the computation does not reflect the correct allocation of the expenses were exempt income. According

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

193/- (Rs.2,19,43,763/- - Rs.1,18,53,570/-) being 0.5% of average value of investments. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee has shown corporate overhead allocation of Rs.1,13,01,195/- for property income which requires to be disallowed and the computation does not reflect the correct allocation of the expenses were exempt income. According

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

193/- (Rs.2,19,43,763/- - Rs.1,18,53,570/-) being 0.5% of average value of investments. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee has shown corporate overhead allocation of Rs.1,13,01,195/- for property income which requires to be disallowed and the computation does not reflect the correct allocation of the expenses were exempt income. According

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -14, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 523 & 524/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17

section 14 A r.w.s 8D(5) of Rs.2,11,77,385/- and Rs.2,20,52,278/- assessment year wise, respectively. It’s next substantive grievance in both these assessment years seeks to delete security and gardening expenses disallowance of Rs.2,30,63,890/- and Rs.1,44,37,939/-; appeal wise, respectively. 3. We note at the outset with the able

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -14, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 523 & 524/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17

section 14 A r.w.s 8D(5) of Rs.2,11,77,385/- and Rs.2,20,52,278/- assessment year wise, respectively. It’s next substantive grievance in both these assessment years seeks to delete security and gardening expenses disallowance of Rs.2,30,63,890/- and Rs.1,44,37,939/-; appeal wise, respectively. 3. We note at the outset with the able

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE vs. SHRADDHA & PRASAD JOINT VENTURE,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2665/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee vide its submissions dated 26.03.2010 and 06.09.2010, explained the difference between revenue sharing arrangement entered into by the joint venture vis-a-vis subcontract. It was explained on behalf of the assessee that in the case of sub-contract, there was a relationship of principal and agent whereas

SATISH JAYNARAYAN MUNDADA,PUNE vs. CENTRAL PROCEEDINGS CENTRE (CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.495/Pun/2021 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20

193/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) vide intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. Before the CIT(A), it was contended that the said amount was paid before filing of return of income u/s 139(1) and no disallowance is warranted. The CIT(A) confirmed the said disallowance

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

193) held that where the recipient of commission has offered the same to tax, it cannot be disallowed u/s 37(1) of the Act in the hands of the payer. On similar lines, when Mr. Ajit Satam has offered the income to tax, it cannot be disallowed in the hands of the payer, i.e. the appellant company.\n7. I further

RAJARAMBAPU PATIL SSK LTD, ,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Rajarambapu Patil Ssk Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Of Sakharale, Islampur, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Sangli. Dist. Sangli – 415 414. Pan: Aaaar 0790 D Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Prasanna L Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg - Dr Date Of Hearing 07/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur Dated 16.05.2017For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Followed The Judgement Of Itat, Mumbai Dated 16/5/1968 In Pravara Ssk In Ita No. 10939-42 Upheld By Hon’Ble Supreme Court, 94 Itr 321, Which Was Accepted By It Dept, For Over 3 Decades & As Held By Supreme Court In Radhasoami Satsang, 193 Itr 321, It Would Not Be Appropriate To Allow The Position To Be Changed In A Subsequent Year, As Re- Confirmed By Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Municipal Corp. Of Thane V. Vidyut Metalics (2007) 8 Scc 688. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Held That It Is Government’S Policy To Encourage Co-Operatives & Appellant’S Business Which Is Run On Co- Operative Principles & Policy & Has Its Aims & Objects That Are

193 ITR 321, it would not be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year, as re- confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corp. of Thane v. Vidyut Metalics (2007) 8 SCC 688. 2. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that it is Government’s policy to encourage co-operatives, and appellant