SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance. Levy of Interest under section 234A and 2348 of the Act 9. The learned ADIT-CPC has levied an interest under section 234A of the Act of Rs. 7,17,497, without assigning any reason whatsoever. 10. The learned ADIT-CPC has erred in levying excess interest under section 2348 of INR 1,26,84,174, without assigning

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, CO of assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

220 (Bombay). 17. In the Cross Objection filed by the assessee company, we held that the assessee is entitled for exemption on profits derived from unit registered with STPI under the provisions of section 10B of the Act. Therefore, the issue raised by the Revenue in these grounds of 12 appeal no.1 to 6 had become academic. Therefore, grounds

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, CO of assessee is allowed and the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

220 (Bombay). 17. In the Cross Objection filed by the assessee company, we held that the assessee is entitled for exemption on profits derived from unit registered with STPI under the provisions of section 10B of the Act. Therefore, the issue raised by the Revenue in these grounds of 12 appeal no.1 to 6 had become academic. Therefore, grounds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. FORCE MOTORS LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1192/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05

220/-. 4 A.Y.2004-05 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed strong reliance on the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and submitted that it is settle position of law, this issue has been consistently held in favour of the assessee not only by the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal (supra.) relying

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowed the deduction of Rs.25,06,220/- under section 80JJAA of the Act merely on account of late filing of Form 10DA, without appreciating that filing of Form 10DA is a procedural requirement and non-compliance thereof should not result in denial of an otherwise allowable deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act. Any consequential relief to which the Appellant

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowed the deduction of Rs.25,06,220/- under section 80JJAA of the Act merely on account of late filing of Form 10DA, without appreciating that filing of Form 10DA is a procedural requirement and non-compliance thereof should not result in denial of an otherwise allowable deduction under section 80JJAA of the Act. Any consequential relief to which the Appellant

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.564/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, The Principal 3Rd Floor, Panchsil Tech Park, V Commissioner Of Income Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014. S Tax-3, Pune. Pan: Aadcb6018P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala & Ms.Vasanti B.Patel – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed By Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 On 14.03.2023. In This Case, Assessment Order Was Passed On 26.02.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. Ground I: Challenging The Validity Of Revision Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act 1.1. The Learned Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Bajaj Housing Finance Limited [A]

220 of the paper book which was copy of notice and assessee’s reply. Ld.AR hence submitted that AO had arrived at the conclusion after studying the details. The ld.AR also submitted that there are two views on this issue. ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Vikramaditya NagrikSahkari Bank Maryadit Vs. ACIT in ITA No.36/IND/2017 for A.Y.2013-14 has held

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance is no more res integra since the tribunal’s order(s) in A.Y. 2005-06 in ITA 472/PN/10 dated 25.06.2013 in A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 has already rejected its claim in light of interest free funds turning out to be more than the alleged interest bearing funds diverted to sister concern

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

section 36(1)(iii) interest disallowance is no more res integra since the tribunal’s order(s) in A.Y. 2005-06 in ITA 472/PN/10 dated 25.06.2013 in A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 has already rejected its claim in light of interest free funds turning out to be more than the alleged interest bearing funds diverted to sister concern

SPAN OVERSEAS P LTD,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.409/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Span Overseas Private Limited, The Principal Office No.5, Amar Avinash Vs Commissioner Of Income Corporate City 11, Bund Garden Tax-3, Pune. Road, Pune – 411006. Pan: Aabcs 4214 N Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 Dated 30.03.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 13.11.2019 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Span Overseas Private Limited ('The Appellant') Objects To The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Dated March 30, 2022 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Pune - 3 ('Pr. Cit) For The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Amongst Other Grounds: Span Overseas P. Ltd.,[A]

disallowed and added back. Then only, it will be allowed in the year of actual payment made. The ld.AR submitted before us that assessee had never collected the sale tax from customers in the year 1994-95, 1995-96 & 1996-97 and had never debited sales tax in the year 1994-95, 1995-96 & 1996-97. However, these are mere

M/S. ADLER MEDIEQUIP PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, PUNE

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

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Act. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in charging interest under section 234D of the Act. Initiation of penalty proceedings

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

disallowance to Rs.2,24,191/- as against Rs.1,25,51,607/- proposed by the Assessing Officer in the remand report by observing as under: “6….. I have carefully considered the appellant submissions, judicial pronouncement quoted by the Appellant and Assessment Order. It is a fact on the record that the Ld. Assessing Officer has made the Addition of Rs.4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

disallow the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act, since reasons not having alleged / particularized any failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, reopening of assessment was without jurisdiction. 20. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

disallowance of said expenses and obtained declaration. Further, receipt shown in the Tentative Trading account as on 10/08/2017 is not disputed by the Ld A.O, as such sources were definitely available with the appellant. However, in the aforesaid tentative trading accounts as contract receipt was shown at Rs. 8,90,00,000/- up to 10.08.2017 and as per audited books

DIVYADATTA DIGAMBER NAGARI SAH. PATSANSTHA LTD,,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, SATARA

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1306/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Divyadatta Digamber Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. Nagari Sah. Patsanstha Ltd., Moti Heights, Azad Chowk, Koregaon, Satara- 415501. Pan : Aaeas1871L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Cit(A)-4, Pune’S Order Dated 24.06.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-4/Ward- 3, Satara/479/2017-18/188 Involving Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Rejecting Its Section 154 Rectification Filed On 26.07.2017 Thereby Disallowing Section 80P Deduction Claim Therein

disallowing section 80P deduction claim therein 2 of Rs.34,39,055/-. The CIT(A) detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect reads as under :- “6.3 DECISION: The observations of the AO, submissions of the appellant and the material on record have been considered. Since all the Grounds of Appeal No. 1, 2 & 3 are inter-linked

MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

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

220/- after disallowing the claim of interest paid on borrowed capital in respect of Flat No. 11 at Breach Candy Garden, Mumbai amounting to Rs.1,22,59,620/- u/s 24(b) of the Act. For AY 2017-18, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO on 14.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act on total income of Rs.1

MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT-CIR-7, PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

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

220/- after disallowing the claim of interest paid on borrowed capital in respect of Flat No. 11 at Breach Candy Garden, Mumbai amounting to Rs.1,22,59,620/- u/s 24(b) of the Act. For AY 2017-18, the assessment was completed by the Ld. AO on 14.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act on total income of Rs.1

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

6. Next comes commission expenditure of Rs.29,54,313/- disallowed by both the learned lower authorities. The CIT(A)‟s detailed discussion affirming the same reads as under: “4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Pvt. Ltd. Company engaged in trading in computer hardware and peripherals. The appellant has filed a return of income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LIMITED, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1236/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Assistant Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Commissioner Of Income V Dudhutpadak Sangh Limited, Tax, S B-1, Midc, Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416234. Pan: Aaaak0230D Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sandeep P. Sathe – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2019.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Rs.5,62,220/- On Account Of Fixed Assets On Which Project Subsidy Was Received From National Dairy Development Board As The Department Has Contested The Issue Before The Supreme Court. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Limited [R]

220/-. It has been mentioned in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer that for earlier years, in assessee’s own case this issue has been decided in favour of assessee and Department’s Appeal is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4.2 The ITAT in ITA Nos.2726 & 2727/PUN/2016 in assessee’s own case has held as under