JOHN DEERE EQUIPMENT PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1163/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd., (Now Merged With John Deere India Pvt. Ltd.) Tower Xiv, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411028 …. Pan: Aaacl7331A Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 14, Pune

197 of the Act, then the assessee could not be held to be in default. Where the assessee was held to be not in default under section 201(1) of the Act, then there is no requirement for making any disallowance

E-ALLY SECURITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,RAIGAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE, PANVEL, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

section 14A read with Rule 8D and relying on certain decisions and distinguishing the decisions cited by the assessee, he made the disallowance of Rs.40,53,508/-. 3 6. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC though noted that the assessee has received the exempt income of only Rs.2,000/-, however, dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee by directing

NELSON GLOBAL PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE, MAHARAHSTRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

Disallowance of Rs.36,60,197 under section 37 of the Act: Erred on the facts and in circumstances of the case

KUDALE AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-14, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

disallowance of Rs.3,92,050/- being (30% of interest expenses of Rs.13,06,800/-) u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of failure to deduct TDS thereon contending that the case of the assessee is covered under proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that

AIS SHIVAJI MEMORIAL SOCIETYS EMPLOYEES COOP CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139” 7. He accordingly submitted that when the return was processed

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”].

disallowance. This is for the reason that the assessee has admittedly produced his sub-contractors in issue so far as section ITA No.441/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2008-09 Mahavir Adinath Salve (A) 194C contractual payments are concerned wherein it has been found that the latter party(ies) had duly filed all the relevant details indicating them as not liable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. VASCON ENGINEERS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is Dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Vs. Vascon Engineers Limited, Of Income Tax, Pune. Vascon Weikfileld Chamber, Opposite Hyatt Hotel, Nagar Road, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacv1249F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ajit Tolani & Darpan Kriplani Revenue By Smt. Indira R. Adakil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.02.2025Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3/4) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 23.01.2017 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 36(1)(u) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that the assessee had advanced interest-free/low-interest loans to group concerns while claiming substantial interest deduction on borrowed capital. 5. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in holding that interest free loans were made out of own funds merely

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

section 40(a)(ia)of the Act. Moreover, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. In effect, the method adopted by the Assessing Officer will also result in double taxation of the same contract revenue which is in violation of the Karnataka High Court decision reported in 197

RAJARAMBAPU SHETKARI AND SHETMAJUR SAHHAYA SAMITI,,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SANGLI

Appeal is allowed for stastical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.370/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

disallowance on account of assessee’s failure in deducting TDS on contractual payments involving harvesting and sugarcane transportation. 6. It emerges in this factual background that the assessee’s case all along before the lower authorities has been that it had indeed obtained section 197

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Moreover, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. In effect, the method adopted by the Assessing Officer will also result in double taxation of the same contract revenue which is in violation of the Karnataka High Court decision reported in 197

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 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Moreover, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. In effect, the method adopted by the Assessing Officer will also result in double taxation of the same contract revenue which is in violation of the Karnataka High Court decision reported in 197

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 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Moreover, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) made by the Assessing Officer cannot besustained. In effect, the method adopted by the Assessing Officer will also result in double taxation of the same contract revenue which is in violation of the Karnataka High Court decision reported in 197

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

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

section 40(a)(ia)of the Act. Moreover, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. In effect, the method adopted by the Assessing Officer will also result in double taxation of the same contract revenue which is in violation of the Karnataka High Court decision reported in 197

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

SHAKIL SHAKUR BIJAPURE,SATARA vs. DCIT , SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016 where the declarant fails to make the prescribed payment, the declaration stands void ab initio, and the disclosed income becomes chargeable to tax under the regular provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the declaration made by the assessee lost its legal sanctity and the amount of Rs.95

SHAKIL SHAKUR BIJAPURE ,SATARA vs. DCIT, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016 where the declarant fails to make the prescribed payment, the declaration stands void ab initio, and the disclosed income becomes chargeable to tax under the regular provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the declaration made by the assessee lost its legal sanctity and the amount of Rs.95

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

disallowance was made under section 14A of the Act at ₹ 16,387/-. ITA Nos.1062 to 1068/PUN/2017 36 29. The assessee is in appeal against the order of Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP. 30. The Ld. AR first referred to brief facts of the case and pointed out that the assessee was engaged in online pharmacy i.e. e-pharmacy business, wherein the stock

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

disallowance was made under section 14A of the Act at ₹ 16,387/-. ITA Nos.1062 to 1068/PUN/2017 36 29. The assessee is in appeal against the order of Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP. 30. The Ld. AR first referred to brief facts of the case and pointed out that the assessee was engaged in online pharmacy i.e. e-pharmacy business, wherein the stock

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

disallowance was made under section 14A of the Act at ₹ 16,387/-. ITA Nos.1062 to 1068/PUN/2017 36 29. The assessee is in appeal against the order of Assessing Officer/TPO/DRP. 30. The Ld. AR first referred to brief facts of the case and pointed out that the assessee was engaged in online pharmacy i.e. e-pharmacy business, wherein the stock