DESIMUS FINANCIALS LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Desimus Financials Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Moga Road, Opp. Punjab Kesari, Pune Bagha Purana, Dist. Maoga, Punjab – 142 038 Pan Aaack9547K Appellant Respondent

disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) can be made. The AO noted that the amendment to section 201(1) was made by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-07-2012. He, therefore, inferred that section 40(a)(ia) could be invoked in respect of such interest payment for the period 01-04-2012 to 30-06-2012. In this way, he calculated

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

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

3) of the Act accepting the international transaction with respect to the software engineering services segment to be at arm's length. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the profit margins in respect of the 10A unit was substantially higher than the profit margin of the comparables chosen by the assessee while carrying out the comparability analysis

SHRI VASUPUJYA SWAMI MAHARAJ TEMPLE TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

disallowance has been made for not applying set apart accumulation funds during F.Y. 2016-17 within the period of five years as provided u/s.11(2) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that issue in Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University Vs. CIT – ITA No.505/PUN/2025 order dated 23.06.2025 wherein

SHRI ISHWARLAL GULABCHAND VARDHAMANTAP AYAMBIL TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

disallowance has been made for not applying set apart accumulation funds during F.Y. 2016-17 within the period of five years as provided u/s.11(2) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that issue in Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University Vs. CIT – ITA No.505/PUN/2025 order dated 23.06.2025 wherein

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

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

3) of the Act accepting the international transaction with respect to the software engineering services segment to be at arm's length. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the profit margins in respect of the 10A unit was substantially higher than the profit margin of the comparables chosen by the assessee while carrying out the comparability analysis

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

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

3) of the Act accepting the international transaction with respect to the software engineering services segment to be at arm's length. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the profit margins in respect of the 10A unit was substantially higher than the profit margin of the comparables chosen by the assessee while carrying out the comparability analysis

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

201 (Allahabad)\n3. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. MAC Public Charitable Trust (2022)\n144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras)\n4. Nayyar Patel Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (2022) 137\ntaxmann.com 149 (Kerala)\n5. Bannalal Jat Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of\nIncome-tax (2019) 106 taxтапп.com 128 (SC)\n6. Sri Vidyaranya Seva Sangha Vs. Commissioner of Income

M/S. FIS SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT.LTD, (FROMERLY KNOWN AS SUNGARD SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.LTD,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

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. 1695/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Fis Solutions (India) Private Limited. Formerly Known As Sungard Solutions (India) Private Limited. Westend Centre One, Survey No. 169/1, Sector Ii, Aundh, Pune-411 007. Pan : Aaace7476K .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

201 (Delhi Trib.). We found the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of LG Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in IT(TP)A No.3122/Bang/2018 dt.28.05.2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 has excluded the comparable as observed at paras 8 & 8.1 at page 4 as under : “8. We also notice that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SILVER JUBILEE MOTORES LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-6, Vs. Silver Jubilee Motors Ltd., Pune 12, Moledina Road, Camp, Pune 411001 Pan : Aahcs8736P Appellant Respondent

3 6. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by observing that the case was covered by the first proviso to section 201

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-8 vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. PUNE, AKURDI 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 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

RAJESH MOHANLAL BORA,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, NASHIK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1609/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajesh Mohanlal Bora, 401, Rushiraj House, Thatte Nagar, College Road, Nashik – 422 005 Pan : Abcpb5526F . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Ito Ward- 1(1) Nashik . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/08/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Dove Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 29/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Income Tax Officer 1(1), Nashik [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 8

section 201(1A), the Ld. AO disallowed the aforesaid amount of finance charges and culminated the assessment with a solitary addition. 2.3 Aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned disallowance, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld. FAA, who finding no force in the submission of the appellant, reverberated the views of Ld. AO and confirmed the impugned disallowance

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

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

3. Aggrieved, the assessee challenged the order of the Ld. AO before the Ld. CIT(A) contending that the Ld. AO erred in making 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

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made for the reason that the reimbursement on account of A&M expenses, management cost and selling discount given to HUL does not result any income in the hands of the payee i.e. HUL and, therefore, the question of deduction of tax at source does not arise. It was further