DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD., (FORMERLY: BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LTD.,),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.356/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

194C to 194J so as to raise TDS demand again under section 201 and levy of interest under section 201(1A). Therefore, assessee‟s ground on this issue are to be allowed as the entire amount has been disallowed under the provisions of section 40(a)(i)/(ia) in the computation of income on the reason that

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

194C of the Act. It was further pointed out that even the provisions of section 194-I of the Act were not attracted as the fees were not in the nature of rent. Hence, no tax was required to be deducted from these payments. The contention of assessee was found to be not correct by the Assessing Officer

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

194C of the Act. It was further pointed out that even the provisions of section 194-I of the Act were not attracted as the fees were not in the nature of rent. Hence, no tax was required to be deducted from these payments. The contention of assessee was found to be not correct by the Assessing Officer

YASHWANT DADASAHEB BANDIGARE,,KOLHAPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX : 2,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1721/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

3. On verification of records by the Pr. CIT, on finding that the AO failed to call for the details of these transport expenses, details of the names of the payees, their PAN numbers and compliance to the provisions of section 194C(6) of the Act etc., the Pr.CIT held that the said order passed

SHABBIR HASHAM SAYYED,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.947/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shabbir Hasham Sayyed, New Ashiyana Enterprises, S.No.75/2, Room No.153, Sayyed Nagar, Hadapsar, Pune-411028. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Achps9564L बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-14(2), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Mrs. Shabana Parveen सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-7, Pune Dated 08.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 66,84,217/- By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Realizing The Fact That Appellant Is An Individual & This Was The First Year Of Applicability Of Provisions Of Section 44Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Therefore For A.Y. 2012 - 2013 No Tax Was Deductible Under Chapter Xvii B & Therefore Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Do Not Have Any Application In The Appellant’S Case.

disallowance of Rs. 5,50,527/- by invoking provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the nature of payment and circumstances under which the payments have been made by the appellant. Your appellant prays for appropriate relief. The appellant craves for to leave, add, alter, modify, delete above ground of appeal before

M/S. B. M. CHAPALKAR & SONS,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2906/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. B.M. Chapalkar & Sons, 26, Dehbanoo Complex, Nashik Pune Road, Nashik Road, Nashik-422 101, Pan: Aadfb5084C .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

3(1) of Section 139. This section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to the taxability of any item or the nature of payments falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee can be declared

HEMANT ENTERPRISES,NASHIK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowing ₹27,14,806/- TDS deducted by Mumbai WTR Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s. 234A as the appellant had filed return within due date u/s. 139(1). 3. The appellant craves to add, alter, modify or substitute any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

KIRLOSKAR PROPRIETARY LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

disallowing reimbursement of expenses of Rs.9,47,119/- paid to consultants, on account of non deduction of Tax at Source. He failed to appreciate the fact that the payments made to consultants are reimbursement of expenses hence the sections 194C or 194J are not applicable in the instant cases. 3

MIRZA JAHED BAIG,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowance for violation of section 194C of the Act to an extent of Rs.4,01,08,595/- and an amount of Rs.73,56,773/- for violation of section 194I of the Act by invoking provisions u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act vide its order u/s. 143(3

VANAZ ENGINEERS LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -7,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1959/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vanaz Engineers Limited, 85/1, Paud Road, Pune-411 038. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacv6873B बनाम / V/S. Addl. Cit, Range- 7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 5, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Vanaz Engineers Limited (‘The Appellant’), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Dated 12Th May, 2017 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 5 ['Cit(A)’], Pune (Received By The Appellant On 20Th June, 2017) Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) On The Following Grounds Which Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Has:

3 7. erred in making disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of Rs 15,36, 557, without appreciating that in view of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) r.w. first proviso of sub-section (1) of section 201, as the payee has included the aforesaid receipts in its income and paid taxes on the same, no disallowance

EPRSS PREPAID RECHARGE SERVICES INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.828/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Eprss Prepaid Recharge Services India P. Ltd., 207, Kpct Commercial Complex, Fatima Nagar, Wanowrie, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411013 …. Pan:Aabce5025H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward – 1(4), Pune

194C of the Act during the subject assessment year, would require the deduction under section 194J of the Act due to some future amendment with retrospective effect. Another aspect which was decided by the Hon‟ble High Court was that disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of the Act could only be made if the payment was royalty

EPRSS PREPAID RECHARGE SERVICES INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.828/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Eprss Prepaid Recharge Services India P. Ltd., 207, Kpct Commercial Complex, Fatima Nagar, Wanowrie, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411013 …. Pan:Aabce5025H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward – 1(4), Pune

194C of the Act during the subject assessment year, would require the deduction under section 194J of the Act due to some future amendment with retrospective effect. Another aspect which was decided by the Hon‟ble High Court was that disallowance of expenditure under section 40(a)(i) of the Act could only be made if the payment was royalty

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.

Section 194C were not applicable for the purpose of TDS, without appreciating the fact that the work contract order was issued in the name of the assessee (JV) and re-allocation of the contract between the members of the JV would amount to sub-contracting. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

M/S. TAO PUBLISHING PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1140/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

SECTION 40(a) OF THE ACT Rs. 5,60,269/-: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [hereinafter CIT(A)] erred in upholding the disallowance made by the learned AO of Rs. 5,60,269/- to M/s. Imperial Packers u/s.40

SATISH ISHWARDAS AGRAWAL,,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Section 194C itself does not apply in the given facts and circumstances. The impugned disallowance stands deleted thereby. The assessee succeeds in his instant former substantive ground. 4. Next comes similar 40(a)(ia) disallowance on assessee’s advertisement expenses of Rs.1,44,020/-. He first of all contended to have only claimed an amount of Rs.42,308/- wherein

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 of payments made in violation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short). 3. The A.O during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee is a joint venture and was formed solely for the purpose of acquiring project works of construction of Jihe Kathapur Lift Irrigation

AJAY ENGINEERING & AGRI EQUIPMENT COMPANY,AURANGABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

3 4. We have heard both the sides in Virtual Court and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. Pr.CIT has invoked the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act, which pre-supposes satisfaction of the twin conditions, viz., the assessment order should be erroneous and also it should be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the above conditions

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. SHRADDHA & IHP JV WANGANA PROJECT,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 35/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

3. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 24.11.2014, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by following the order of Tribunal in the case of assessee’s sister concern, M/s. Shraddha & Mahalaxmi Joint Venture in ITA No. 942/PN/2013, decided on 28.11.2014, wherein identical issues were involved granted relief

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. SHRADDHA & PRASAD JV KHURA VARODA,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 35/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

3. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 24.11.2014, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by following the order of Tribunal in the case of assessee’s sister concern, M/s. Shraddha & Mahalaxmi Joint Venture in ITA No. 942/PN/2013, decided on 28.11.2014, wherein identical issues were involved granted relief