HILARY VAZ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CPC,BENGALORE, BENGALORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

215/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the amount received by ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 24 M/s Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd & Others ITA No. 320/PUN/2022 & Others the assessee from its employees as contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) etc., [for short “the relevant funds”] was not credited

CLOVER INFOTECH P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

215/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the amount received by ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 24 M/s Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd & Others ITA No. 320/PUN/2022 & Others the assessee from its employees as contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) etc., [for short “the relevant funds”] was not credited

MR HARISCHANDRA DHARAMNATH PANDEY,NASHIK vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

215/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the amount received by ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 24 M/s Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd & Others ITA No. 320/PUN/2022 & Others the assessee from its employees as contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) etc., [for short “the relevant funds”] was not credited

ALLIED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES ASPIRE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (CPC), BANGALORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

215/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the amount received by ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 24 M/s Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd & Others ITA No. 320/PUN/2022 & Others the assessee from its employees as contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) etc., [for short “the relevant funds”] was not credited

GOVINDSINGH BALRAJSINGH JADOUN,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANTDIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

215/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the amount received by ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 24 M/s Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd & Others ITA No. 320/PUN/2022 & Others the assessee from its employees as contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) etc., [for short “the relevant funds”] was not credited

DWARKADHISH SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

215/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the amount received by ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 24 M/s Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd & Others ITA No. 320/PUN/2022 & Others the assessee from its employees as contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) etc., [for short “the relevant funds”] was not credited

GLOBEFLEX RESEARCH I P LTD., ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

215/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the amount received by ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 24 M/s Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd & Others ITA No. 320/PUN/2022 & Others the assessee from its employees as contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) etc., [for short “the relevant funds”] was not credited

MR HARISCHANDRA DHARAMNATH PANDEY,NASHIK vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

215/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the amount received by ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 24 M/s Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd & Others ITA No. 320/PUN/2022 & Others the assessee from its employees as contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) etc., [for short “the relevant funds”] was not credited

M/S KOTHARI AGRITECH P LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

215/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the amount received by ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 24 M/s Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd & Others ITA No. 320/PUN/2022 & Others the assessee from its employees as contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) etc., [for short “the relevant funds”] was not credited

MR MADAN SITARAM KARANDE,ICHALKARANJI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

215/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the amount received by ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 24 M/s Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd & Others ITA No. 320/PUN/2022 & Others the assessee from its employees as contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) etc., [for short “the relevant funds”] was not credited

ALLIED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES ASPIRE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC), BANGALORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliasstt. Assessee’S Departmental Sr

215/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act for the reason that the amount received by ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 24 M/s Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd & Others ITA No. 320/PUN/2022 & Others the assessee from its employees as contribution to the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) / Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) etc., [for short “the relevant funds”] was not credited

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. MAHALAXMI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 14A is still applicable disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D\nworks out to Rs.22,83,215/-. However, the above

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

215 Taxman 140 (Guj.HC) In this case, the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee, the head notes of the said decision reads as under – “Speculative transaction — Speculative loss—Forward contract, cancellation of—AO made disallowance on account of loss ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., claimed due to cancellation

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

215 Taxman 140 (Guj.HC) In this case, the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee, the head notes of the said decision reads as under – “Speculative transaction — Speculative loss—Forward contract, cancellation of—AO made disallowance on account of loss ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., claimed due to cancellation

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

215 Taxman 140 (Guj.HC) In this case, the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee, the head notes of the said decision reads as under – “Speculative transaction — Speculative loss—Forward contract, cancellation of—AO made disallowance on account of loss ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., claimed due to cancellation

ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-6, PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPERS LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

disallowance the claim of Rs.44,95,264/- under section 80IA. This action being not in accordance with the law it is prayed that the same may be allowed. The appellant named above craves to add, alter, to amend and to modify the grounds as and when required.” 4. With regard to ground No.1, the Assessing Officer has treated an amount

SUYASH AUTO PRESS COMPONENTS AND ASSEMBLYS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6 (4),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

215-216, Decision Tower, Satara Road, Pune-411037 PAN : AACCS5937P ......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 6(4), Pune ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tapadiya Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 24-06-2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 06-07-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This

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 2(47) of the Act, on which the AO kept his reliance. Contents of Para No.13 and 14 of the order of CIT(A) are relevant and therefore, the same are extracted here as under : “13. Thus, from the above order, it is quite clear that there was no concluded contract between the parties capable of specific performance. This