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"

section 194C(7) of the Act. Further, he mentioned that the AO has already passed fresh assessment order giving effect to the revision order of the Pr.CIT disallowing

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, 194J, 194H and 194I of the Act. The said non-deduction of TDS was reported by the auditors in clause 27(b)(i) and 27(b)(ii) of the tax audit report. The list of payments, wherein the assessee failed to deduct TDS was on account of provision made for estimated expenditure was under different heads. The JCIT noted

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

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.

disallowance should be restricted to these three persons only as per Section 194C(6) of the Act. 7 A.Y.2010-11 18. The Ld. DR fairly

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:

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

disallowance made by Assessing Officer was upheld. 7. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee was engaged mainly in distributorship of recharges. He referred to the amended definition of section 9(1)(via) of the Act and also Explanation 2(iva) and pointed

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

disallowance made by Assessing Officer was upheld. 7. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 8. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the assessee was engaged mainly in distributorship of recharges. He referred to the amended definition of section 9(1)(via) of the Act and also Explanation 2(iva) and pointed

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) of the Act. 5. In First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) allowed

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

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

disallowance made by the learned AO of Rs. 5,60,269/- to M/s. Imperial Packers u/s.40(a) of the IT Act. The learned authorities failed to appreciate that this amount merely represented reimbursement of expenses, according to separate memos/bills clearly stated to be for reimbursement of expenses, and was not subject to deduction of tax at source

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 since TDS provisions are applicable to all entities except individuals and HUF having gross receipts or turnover from business or profession below the prescribed limit. 6. It was further explained on behalf of the assessee that joint venture as such does not execute any contract work but were merely formed for obtaining contract work and for receiving

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

194C of the Act. (e) The assessee had failed to deduct tax from the payments made to its members the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would apply. 6. the A.O further held that the assessee had claimed TDS of Rs. 59,58,556/- in its return of income on total contract receipts, however no income

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

disallowance of Transport Expenses of Rs.37,19,441/- u/s.40(a)(ia) for failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source u/s.194C of the Act. The assessee submitted before the ld. Pr.CIT that the case was covered under sub-section (6) of section 194C which states that no deduction shall be made from any sum credited

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS thereupon. 3. The assessee at this stage invited our attention to her identical additional substantive ground(s) raised in as many three petitions that once the Assessing Officer reopening reasons recorded in these three assessment years are not sustainable, these reassessments deserve

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS thereupon. 3. The assessee at this stage invited our attention to her identical additional substantive ground(s) raised in as many three petitions that once the Assessing Officer reopening reasons recorded in these three assessment years are not sustainable, these reassessments deserve

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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

194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS thereupon. 3. The assessee at this stage invited our attention to her identical additional substantive ground(s) raised in as many three petitions that once the Assessing Officer reopening reasons recorded in these three assessment years are not sustainable, these reassessments deserve

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

section 194C since TDS provisions are applicable to all entities except individuals and HUF having gross receipts or turnover from business or profession below the prescribed limit. 6. It was further explained on behalf of the assessee that joint venture as such does not execute any contract work but were merely formed for obtaining contract work and for receiving