DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

vi. Disallowance of Remuneration to partners Rs.17,50,000/-. vii. Disallowance of interest paid to partners Rs.38,61,612/-. Aggrieved by assessment order dated 26-09-2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the First Appellate Proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) apart from making GP addition of Rs.5

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

vi. Disallowance of Remuneration to partners Rs.17,50,000/-. vii. Disallowance of interest paid to partners Rs.38,61,612/-. Aggrieved by assessment order dated 26-09-2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the First Appellate Proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) apart from making GP addition of Rs.5

VIRENDRA SINGH SAINI,HARYANA vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE, BENGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1483/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20

2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date.’. The term `due date’ for the purposes of this clause has been defined in Explanation 1 to this provision to mean: `the date by which the assessee is required as an employer

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

24-7-2007. The moot question is as to whether in terms of clauses (v) and (vi) of section 2(47) an event of 'transfer' had taken place as a result of the execution of the agreement in the instant year on 12-7-2005. The said agreement indeed envisages a transfer, is not disputed by the assessee, only point

JALGAON JILHA MAJUR KAMGAR SAHAKARI SANSTHA FEDERATION LTD.,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JALGAON, JALGAON

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

24,575/- u/s\n80P(2)(a)(vi); (ii) Rs.42,32,471/- u/s 80P(2)(d) and (iii) Rs.50,000/- u/s\n80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act\"). The case was selected\nfor scrutiny through CASS. The Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s\n143(3) disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80P of Rs.67

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 of payment made towards web hosting charges to Amazon Web Services LLC (USA) (hereinafter referred to as „AWS‟) by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act on the analogy that payment was in the nature of royalty as per newly inserted Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act having retrospective effect. The assessee

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 of payment made towards web hosting charges to Amazon Web Services LLC (USA) (hereinafter referred to as „AWS‟) by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act on the analogy that payment was in the nature of royalty as per newly inserted Explanation-2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act having retrospective effect. The assessee

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

vi) As regards, the disallowance of claim for exemption of income u/s 10AA of the Act in respect of deemed exports to UNICEF, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the benefit of exemption u/s 10AA considering the fact that the deemed exports are also eligible for exemption u/s 10AA following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

2) of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”) without recording any satisfaction which is a sine qua non for making disallowance under section 14A. 10. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the claim of the Appellant

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.590/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(2), Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.902/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pr.Cit-1, Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Vs Pune Plot No.1, Sr.No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi, Pune 411 014 Pan : Aabce4323Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

2) of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”) without recording any satisfaction which is a sine qua non for making disallowance under section 14A. 10. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the claim of the Appellant

ASSISTANT OINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PYC HINDU GYMKHANA,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.179/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

disallowing excess claim of depreciation on the ground of double deduction. Relevant lines are extracted here as under : “4.12……….. ……………. The assessee has incurred capital expenditure of Rs.1,93,58,277/- for construction of building etc. during the year under consideration. Hence, accordingly, depreciation at 10% amounting to Rs.19,35,827/- is allowed to the expenditure in the earlier years also

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 SATARA, SATARA vs. KARAD PATAN TALUKA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI SOCIETY LIMITEDTY , KARAD

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2289/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, V Karad Patan Taluka Prathmik Ward-1, Satara. S Shikshak Sahakari Society Limited, 190 B Shaniwar Peth, Opp.Shivneri Lodge, Karad, Satara – 415110 Pan: Aaaak0559R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Satish U Nade Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 21.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The I.T .Act, 1961 Dated

disallowed assessee’s claim for deduction u/s.80P(2) of the Act. The relevant paragraphs 4.5 to 6 of Assessment Order are reproduced here as under : 3 ITA No.2289/PUN/2025 [A] “4.5.) Further, it may be noted that the assessee for the year under consideration has claimed the deduction U's 80P of the Act to the extent of Rs. 2

SATISH MADHAORAO YEOLE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), , PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date.’. The term `due date’ for the purposes of this clause has been defined in Explanation 1 to this provision to mean: `the date by which the assessee is required as an employer

M/S. THAKKER DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date.’. The term `due date’ for the purposes of this clause has been defined in Explanation 1 to this provision to mean: `the date by which the assessee is required as an employer

RAJDEEP INFO TECHNO P LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date.’. The term `due date’ for the purposes of this clause has been defined in Explanation 1 to this provision to mean: `the date by which the assessee is required as an employer