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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

204 ITR 719 were relied upon. The Ld.CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. However, no specific comments were given by the Assessing Officer on this issue but the Assessing Officer reiterated the finding of the predecessor Assessing Officer. After considering the remand report the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by observing as under

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND & SONS vs. JOINT COMMISSINER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

204 ITR 719 were relied upon. The Ld.CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. However, no specific comments were given by the Assessing Officer on this issue but the Assessing Officer reiterated the finding of the predecessor Assessing Officer. After considering the remand report the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by observing as under

KEVAL KADU DEORE,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1997/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Keval Kadu Deore, Plot No.4, Shiv Parvati Bunglow, Pumping Station Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422013 …. Pan: Adnpd3164C Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Nashik

section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 Shri Keval Kadu Deore 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.5,30,204

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

disallowance of INR 4,50,70,798 under u/s 14A of the Act r.w rule 8D(2)(ii) be deleted. Ground 10: Additional relief under section 90 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the AU based on the directions of Ld. DRP erred in disregarding Appellant’s claim for additional relief under section

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

The appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed for\nStatistical Purpose

disallowed Assessee's claim of deduction under section\n10AA of the Act, for the interest earned on fixed deposits.\nAggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before\nld.CIT(A).\nAssessee relied on various case laws during\nproceedings before ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition\nfollowing the decision of ITAT Pune in Barclays Share Services\nPrimate Limited

SAHYADRI KARAD HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

204/- as business loss carried forward U/s 72 and Rs.25,29,56,125/- as unabsorbed depreciation carried forward U/s 32(2) be allowed cannot be accepted because as per intimation U/s 143(1) for AY 2018-19 it is clear that in AY 2018-19 losses to the tune of only Rs.316465973/- were allowed to the appellant to be carried

SAHYADRI KARAD HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

204/- as business loss carried forward U/s 72 and Rs.25,29,56,125/- as unabsorbed depreciation carried forward U/s 32(2) be allowed cannot be accepted because as per intimation U/s 143(1) for AY 2018-19 it is clear that in AY 2018-19 losses to the tune of only Rs.316465973/- were allowed to the appellant to be carried

SANJAY NAMDEO BHARTI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 155/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

disallowance is thus called for under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. In the result, Ground No.2 of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 12………………………. ……………………….. We do not find any substance in the premise taken by the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition. The assessee has furnished the confirmation letter as well as 7/12 extracts concerning the agricultural land

D vs. DISHTI INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D and made disallowance of Rs.5,59,358/-. 14.1 Before the CIT(A), assessee filed written submissions giving the details of investments and reiterated that assessee company has not received any dividend on investments in the previous year or subsequent year and relied on various decisions in support of his claim including the decision of Jurisdictional

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. KALA GENSET PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.346/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-9, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Kala Genset Pvt. Ltd., 392/1, Vill- Mahalunge, Tal. Khed, Pune-410501. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaack6784C Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-6, Pune Dated 31.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Excess Remuneration Paid To The Directors Of The Company?” 2. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Assessee’S Claim Of Rs. 55,20,630/- Claimed As Deduction U/S 80Ib(5)(I) Of The I.T. Act, 1961, When The Assessee Is Not Involved In Manufacturing Or Producing Activity But Is Only Carrying Out The Activity Of Assembling At Its Silassa Unit?”

204 ITR 412, wherein the meaning of manufacture has been analyzed in detail?” 7. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 13,76,694/- on unexplained investment in WIP of Rs. 1,37,66,943/- when the Ld.CIT(A) vide his order

KIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC COMPANY LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1569/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

204/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal solely against the disallowance made u/s.14A at Rs.47,08,705/-. 3 Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. AO has not recorded proper satisfaction as mandated u/s.14A of the Act. He also

VANDERLANDE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 13,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Pun/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

204/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that no deduction of tax at source was made. He held that such amount was chargeable to tax in the hands of the recipient and in the absence of assessee having deducted tax at source, the amount was liable to be disallowed in terms of section

RAMDAS PANDHARINATH KALE(HUF),PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-12(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramdas Pandharinath Kale V The Income Tax Officer, (Huf), S Ward-12(3), Pune. Wagjholi, Kalewasti, Kasanand Road, Haveli, Pune – 412207. Pan: Aaqhr7916A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Avachat – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Delhi U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 19.10.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Each Ground Is Taken Without Prejudice To Each Other.

204/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.1,74,682/-. The above assessed income includes withdrawal of deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act of Rs.25 lakhs income from other sources of Rs.55,522/- and disallowance

AJAY SHANTILAL LALWANI, HUF,,JALGAON 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 आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.717/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance, made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A), is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, ground No. 1.6 raised by the assessee is allowed. E. Ground No. 1.7 relates to addition of Rs.1,07,27,204/- 30. Ground No. 1.7 relates to addition of Rs.1,07,27,204/- on account of alleged difference in the valuation of closing

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection 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.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

section 35AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowing expenditure of Rs.9,79,25,959/- in respect of write off CWIP due to discontinuation of MB car model series W 124 3. Disallowance Rs.25,600/- paid towards membership fee of Poona Golf Club & Hyatt Regency New Delhi, paid for Managing Director & other executives as expenditure not for the purpose

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection 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.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

section 35AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowing expenditure of Rs.9,79,25,959/- in respect of write off CWIP due to discontinuation of MB car model series W 124 3. Disallowance Rs.25,600/- paid towards membership fee of Poona Golf Club & Hyatt Regency New Delhi, paid for Managing Director & other executives as expenditure not for the purpose

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK vs. POONAM DNYANESHWAR MAHAJAN,, NASHIK

In the result, the Cross Object filed by the assessee in C

204/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 07.12.2016 passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.8,17,97,441/- by disallowing the following expenditure :- Sr. No. Expenses Amount 1 Site expenses

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship. 8. In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return