KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

23,680/- determined as per order under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. However, no disallowance under section 80IA

BALAJI UDYOG,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Balaji Udyog, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Jalgaon. J-81, Midc Area, Jalgaon- 425003. Pan : Aagfb2522E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay Kawadia Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit(A). Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Interest Paid To Partners Amounting To Rs.19,23,457/- U/S 40(B) Of The Act. He Specifically Erred In Law In Recasting The Capital Accounts Of The Partners On Account Of Non-Provision Of Depreciation In Books Of Account. 2) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs.1,13,286/-Being 10% Of The Various Expenses Debited To Profit & Loss Account.

section 32(1) of the IT Act held that depreciation is required to be provided in books of accounts & since the assessee failed to do so, therefore, he re-casted the capital account of the partners by reducing the amount of depreciation of earlier years and accordingly excess interest of Rs.19,23,457/- was disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.590, 595 & 1478/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant V Persistent Systems Limited, Commissioner Of Income S 402, Bhageerath, Senapati Tax,Pune. Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp1209Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri R.D.Onkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.01.2024 & 06.05.2024, For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2014-15; Respectively. The Revenue For A.Y.2016- 17Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether In. The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law

Section 14A r.w.r.8D of the Rules with the facts of the assessee’s case and further that why such disallowance was required that has also been explained by the Assessing Officer. This findings sans satisfaction is not the case here. That further, he has made disallowance only one half percent of the average value of investment i.e. 0.50% of Rs.406

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.590, 595 & 1478/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant V Persistent Systems Limited, Commissioner Of Income S 402, Bhageerath, Senapati Tax,Pune. Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp1209Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri R.D.Onkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.01.2024 & 06.05.2024, For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2014-15; Respectively. The Revenue For A.Y.2016- 17Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether In. The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law

Section 14A r.w.r.8D of the Rules with the facts of the assessee’s case and further that why such disallowance was required that has also been explained by the Assessing Officer. This findings sans satisfaction is not the case here. That further, he has made disallowance only one half percent of the average value of investment i.e. 0.50% of Rs.406

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNE vs. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.590, 595 & 1478/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant V Persistent Systems Limited, Commissioner Of Income S 402, Bhageerath, Senapati Tax,Pune. Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp1209Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri R.D.Onkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.01.2024 & 06.05.2024, For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2014-15; Respectively. The Revenue For A.Y.2016- 17Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether In. The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law

Section 14A r.w.r.8D of the Rules with the facts of the assessee’s case and further that why such disallowance was required that has also been explained by the Assessing Officer. This findings sans satisfaction is not the case here. That further, he has made disallowance only one half percent of the average value of investment i.e. 0.50% of Rs.406

M/S. CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

disallowance be made as the assessee was making attempts for letting out the property, Not convinced, the AO computed the annual rental value from these two floors by arriving at reasonable rent of Rs.1,64,47,337/-. After allowing standard deduction @30%, he made the addition of Rs.1,15,13,136/-. No relief was allowed in the first appeal. Classic

M/S. CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

disallowance be made as the assessee was making attempts for letting out the property, Not convinced, the AO computed the annual rental value from these two floors by arriving at reasonable rent of Rs.1,64,47,337/-. After allowing standard deduction @30%, he made the addition of Rs.1,15,13,136/-. No relief was allowed in the first appeal. Classic

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of employee‘s contribution to PF on account of ―underreporting‖ of income is squarely covered under the provisions contained in section 270AA of the Act as the assessee company has satisfied all the aforesaid conditions. 5.5 By respectfully following the judgment of Hon‘ble High court of Delhi in the case of Ultimate Infratech (P) Ltd. V. National faceless

WILDERNEST BETTER LIVING & MAINTENANCE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.856/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Wildernest Better Living V The Income Tax Officer, Maintenance Co-Operative S Ward-6(1), Pune. Society Limited, Plot No.58, 59 & 60, Woldernest Society, Khadakwasla, Taluka Haveli, Pune – 411024. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Arpit Dnyandeo Dambhare & Shri Deepak Sasar – Ca’S Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Panaji Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2021-22 Dated

disallowing assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act, is unsustainable. ITA No.856/PUN/2025 [A] 5.1 Therefore, respectfully following the judicial precedents and consistency, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of Rs.16,19,123/- as claimed by assessee in the Return of Income. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

section 40(a). Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance without\nappreciating that these were actual expenses incurred during AY 2017-18\nby the assessee and not the \"provisions for expenses” on which TDS was\nnot deducted.\n2.2\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating the fact that

SUDHAKAR BAJIRAO SHISODE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2780/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

section 250 (DIN & Order NoITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081048111(1) dated 23 September 2025, dismissing the appeal on the following grounds: •Delay in filing not condoned; • Disallowance

SUNIL BANKATLAL DESADLA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section-80IA(4) deduction disallowance to the tune of Rs.24,23,653/- than that already allowed of Rs.98,24,640/. He takes

M/S SUKHWANI PROMOTORS AND BUILDERS,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S.Sukhwani Promoters & The Principal Builders, Vs Commissioner Of Income 208/2A, Near Swaminathan Tax, (Central), Pune. Clinic, Station Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411018. Pan: Abrfs 1253 P Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Jitendra Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central), Pune Dated 24.03.2022 Under Section 263 Of The Act For A.Y.2017-18. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1 & 2. Pcit Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 Of The Act Which Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Ultra-Virus, In Excess Of And/Or In Want Of Jurisdiction & Otherwise Void. M/S.Sukhwani Promoters & Builders [A]

23(l)(a) of the Act. 4. PCIT erred in holding that the Appellant not deducted TDS on advertisement expense aggregating to Rs.3,17,700/- paid to Silk Route Communication and the AO ought to have made disallowance to the extent of Rs.95,310/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. The PCIT erred in holding that the interest

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

23,92,146/-and provision for expenses of Rs.2,31,13,761/- making together total disallowance of Rs.26,55,05,907/-. It is an undisputed fact that the Appellant Company had debited its account by bogus expenditure of Rs.26,55,05,907/-. At the time of survey, in the statement recorded of Mr. Nitin Deshpande, Managing Director of the appellant

JAYNT VASUDEO ARADHYE,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.683/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Villa No.25, Indradhanu, Laxmi Peth, Vishnu Mill Compound, Solapur- 413001. Pan : Aappa8903M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2022-23 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. The Cpc Was Not Correct Both Factually & Legally In Not Considering The Claim Of Brought Forwarded Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs 27,78,028/-. 11. Section 143(1) As It Stands On The Statute Books As On Today, Does Not Permit Either Cpc Or The Ao To Make Such Adjustments As They Are Beyond The Scope Of The Said Section.

23) or clause (iia) of sub- section (1) of section 32 or section 32AD or section 33AB or section 33ABA or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iia) or sub- clause (iii) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2AA) of section 35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or clause (iia) of section 57 or under

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. VAISHNAVI SATISH BANKAR, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

Disallowance of Rs.1,50,000/- under section 80C of the Income Tax Act. The relevant paragraph 57 of the ld.CIT(A)’s Order is reproduced here as under : 18 ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] ―57. As regards to the claim of deduction on account of payment of principal amount of loan, I have considered the facts of the case

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

Disallowance of Rs.1,50,000/- under section 80C of the Income Tax Act. The relevant paragraph 57 of the ld.CIT(A)’s Order is reproduced here as under : 18 ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] ―57. As regards to the claim of deduction on account of payment of principal amount of loan, I have considered the facts of the case

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act 13 The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act on arbitrary premise that there is under-reporting of income done by the Appellant The above grounds are without prejudice to each other The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw