B S ENTERPRISES,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

NETSCOUT SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

M/S ENERTECH UPS P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

ASHOKA BUILDCON LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

BALIRAJA SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS P. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

HYT ENGINEERING CO P LTD, ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS P. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

SHREE ASHTVINAYAK GLASS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act simply deals with the ‘Time of payment of wages’. It does not stipulate any time limit for deposit of the employees share in the relevant funds. For that purpose, the relevant Acts give a window for depositing the contribution within 15 days of the last month's salary. Thus, contribution

INTERVALVE POONAWALLA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

234/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He noted that the assessee in its computation of income has disallowed meager amount of Rs.5,000/- as expenditure incurred for earning the dividend income to the tune of Rs.24,57,376/-. The Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

disallowances made by the learned AO and TPO and upheld by the learned DRP be deleted. ITA No.227/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14(A) Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before

BNY MELLON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS (INDIA) PVT LTD,PUNE vs. I.T.O , CPC BANGALURU, BANGULURU

In the result, both appeals of the Assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

234/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1)(a)\nof the Act making certain adjustments and assessing the\nincome at Rs.4,17,17,06,640/-. Further, CPC also levied\ninterest u/s.234C of the Act of Rs.1,11,43,464/- as against\nthe interest calculated by the assessee u/s.234C of the Act at\nRs.8,83,612/-.\n7. The assessee challenged the adjustments

SADASHIVRAO MANDLIK KAGAL TALUKA SAH. SAKHAR KARKHAN LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, KOLHAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sadashivrao Mandlik Kagal Tal. Vs. Acit, Sah. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Circle-1, Sushant S. Phadnis C.A., 613 E Kolhapur Ward, Phadnis Chambers, Shahupuri, 1St Lane, Kolhapur – 416003 Pan : Aaaak1300Q Appellant Respondent

234 A,B,C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8) The assessee craves for leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal. 3. Mr. Jasanani vehemently supported the learned lower authorities action on all three counts i.e. assessee‟s payment of excess cane price, sale

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

234 A,B,C of the Act. 4. Against denial of deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions made against the aforesaid denial of deduction and failed to appreciate that 4.1 The learned AO had drawn an unwarranted inference in disallowing the claim of appellant that the appellant

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

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

234 A,B,C of the Act. 4. Against denial of deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions made against the aforesaid denial of deduction and failed to appreciate that 4.1 The learned AO had drawn an unwarranted inference in disallowing the claim of appellant that the appellant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR vs. SARVODAY SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2265/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Sarvoday Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur A/P Umadi Tal Jath, Vs. Dist. Sangli-416413 Pan : Aaets2962D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

disallow the benefits of section 11 of the Act in the appellant's case is late filing of audit report in form 10B view provisions of section 12A(1)(b) ofthe I.T. Act, 1961, read with 1st Proviso to Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, from the records, I find that the application for condonation

SACHIN GOVIND KELKAR,PUNE vs. CIT (A), PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical

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

disallowance is arbitrary, unjustified, and unwarranted and needs to be deleted. 5. The intimation passed by the Assessing Officer/ CPC does not given the full details of the TDS unmatched and hence the same is bad in law and devoid of any merits. 6. The Assessing Officer erred in levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MICO EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LTD., NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance without appreciating the fact that the interest earned by the assessee society is earned on surplus funds and not its operational income inserted in Co-operative Bank and is to be taxed as income from other sources. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition