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

Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in considering the payments of INR 11,66,32,207

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.

Section 10AA deduction in very terms. The assessee succeeds in its 2nd to 9th substantive grounds. 6. The assessee’s next substantive ground challenges correctness of the lower authorities action disallowing its software purchase claim involving amount of Rs.11,66,32,207

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.

Section 10AA deduction in very terms. The assessee succeeds in its 2nd to 9th substantive grounds. 6. The assessee’s next substantive ground challenges correctness of the lower authorities action disallowing its software purchase claim involving amount of Rs.11,66,32,207

MAHATMA PHULE GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. PCIT-1, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

disallowance of deduction under section 80P, without appreciating that compliance under section 80AC is not mandatory and it is discretionary and further, by implication, AO had accepted one of the views in case of debatable issue. 3. The assessee craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. It is prayed that the above claims

KALYANI STEELS LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

The appeal of the assesse is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kalyani Steels Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mundhwa, Vs. Income-Tax Circle-14, Pune – 411 036 Aaykarsadan, Bodhi Tower, 548/2B, Salisbury Park, Gultekdi, Pune – 411 037. Pan No. Aaack7315D (Appellant) (Respondent)

207]. 22. Applying the aforesaid principles, we find that the legislature, in Section 40(a)(ii) has provided that “any rate or tax levied” on “profits and gains of business or profession” shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. There is no reference to any “cess”. Obviously therefore

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance could not exceed the exempt income figure itself. We thus reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground for this precise reason alone. 3.1 Next comes the Revenue’s Second substantive ground that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in granting the assessee the relief of set off of losses derived from speculative transactions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance could not exceed the exempt income figure itself. We thus reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground for this precise reason alone. 3.1 Next comes the Revenue’s Second substantive ground that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in granting the assessee the relief of set off of losses derived from speculative transactions

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance could not exceed the exempt income figure itself. We thus reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground for this precise reason alone. 3.1 Next comes the Revenue’s Second substantive ground that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in granting the assessee the relief of set off of losses derived from speculative transactions

T AND T INFRA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 T & T Infra Limited Acit, Circle – 7, Pune A-1, Vishnu Vihar, Bibwewadi Vs. Kondhwa Road, Market Yard, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aaect3902H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Ghia Department By : S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-10-2024 O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, Jm :

207/- 2 Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd. 4,85,303/- 3 Manisha construction 13,01,833/- 4 S.K. Yewale and Co 5,59,873/- 5 Sadhbhav Engg Ltd 9,83,325/- Total 40,91,541/- 8. Applying the provisions of section 80IA(4)(b)(i) of the Act, the Assessing Officer disallowed

CRYSTAL GLAZING & CLADDING,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

207, 2nd Floor, Ward –7(1), Pune C-Wing, Gulmohar Apartments, Vs. Above SBI Bank, East Street, Camp, Pune-411001 PAN : AAFFC4528A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suhas P Bora Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 16-07-2024 Date of 07-10-2024 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed

SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, LATUR,LATUR vs. ACIT (EXMP.) CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowing the\nclaim of assessee u/s 57 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is as under: -\n1) Though assessee has stated in his letter many times that the\nInstitution is covered u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the IT. Act. 1961 However,\nno documents to substantiate its claim has been provided. No\ndocument showing the grant allowed to the Institution

SHETH CHIMANLAL GOVINDDAS MEMORIAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

207 ITR 108 (Kerala) vide order dated\n21.07.1993.\nHon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Fr.Mullers\nCharitable Institutions [2014] 44 taxmann.com 275 (Karnataka) vide\norder dated 10.02.2014.\nFindings & Analysis :\n4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In\nthis case, Assessee is a Charitable Trust registered u/s.12AA of the\nAct. Assessee Trust

MRC TRANSOLUTIONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed the claim for deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act, drawing adverse inferences against the appellant. 7. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer taking note of the fact that the rescinding of approval granted

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

disallowed the benefit of the exemption for commission provided to doctors engaged in private practice for referring their patients to the assessee's diagnostic centre, holding that:\n\"It, thus, emerges that an assessee would not be entitled to deduction of payments made in contravention of law. Similarly, payments which are opposed to public policy being in the nature

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

disallowed the benefit of the exemption for\ncommission provided to doctors engaged in private practice for referring\ntheir patients to the assessee's diagnostic centre, holding that:\n\"It, thus, emerges that an assessee would not be entitled to\ndeduction of payments made in contravention of law. Similarly,\npayments which are opposed to public policy being in the nature

SWAMI SAMARTH SAHAKARI BANK LTD,AKKALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 139 of the Act on 30.12.2020 declaring total income at Rs.NIL and claiming deduction u/sec.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act of Rs.32,21,485/-. It has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order 3 that assessee had filed Copy of Registration Certificate under Maharashtra State Co-operatives Societies Act, 1960, Copy of by- laws

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, NASHIK vs. M/S. ASHOKA DHANKUNI KHARAGPUR TOLLWAY LIMITED,, NASHIK

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.143/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Ashoka Dhankuni Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vs Kharagpur Tollway Ltd., Nashik. . S No 861, Ashoka House, Ashoka Marg, Vadala, Nashik. Pan: Aajca 2569 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri B Koteswra Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune- 12’S Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1031080551(1) Dated 28.02.2021, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

disallowing the assessee’s depreciation claim amounting to Rs.3,47,61,85,194,/- pertaining to its “right to collect toll” as an intangible asset under section 32(1)(ii) ITA No.143/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2017-18 (R) M/s.Ashoka Dhankuni Kharagpur Tollway Ltd., of the Act. The Assessing Officer appears to have amortized the assessee’s corresponding amount as per the CBDT

SHARP DESIGNERS AND ENGINEERS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3083/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sharp Designers & Engineers India P.Ltd., Office No.14, A Wing, 1St Floor, Mahalaxmi Heights, S.No. 32/7, 32/8, 33/4, Pune Mumbai Road, Near „Key Hotel‟ , Pimpri, Pune- 411 018. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaack7637E बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Acit, Circle 9, Akurdi, Pune Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

disallowance, that the appellant is in appeal before me. 5. In Ground No. 1, the appellant has alleged that the AO has erred in rejecting the claim made by the appellant u/s. 80IA(4) during the course of assessment proceedings. The appellant filed written submissions in DAK on 24/10/2017, in which it has been admitted that the claim was inadvertently