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

234B and section 234C of the Act as compared to the return of income. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act 6. The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings against the Appellant under section 274 read with section 270A of the Act for under reporting of income. Any consequential relief

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. 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

3. The learned AO erred in not appreciating the submissions made by the Appellant in its proper perspective. Incorrect amount of disallowance of 10AA of the Act in respect of interest income earned 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erroneously denied the deduction under section 10AA of the Act to the tune

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

3. The learned AO erred in not appreciating the submissions made by the Appellant in its proper perspective. Incorrect amount of disallowance of 10AA of the Act in respect of interest income earned 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erroneously denied the deduction under section 10AA of the Act to the tune

CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

3. erred in computing the total income at Rs. 21,73,07,237.00 by making certain additions/disallowances as against the returned income at Rs.21,55,70,180.00. Disallowance of Rs.5,12,450.00 under section 14A of the Act 4. erred in making disallowance of Rs.5,12,450.00 under section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Act against dividend income exempt under

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Disallowances u/s.14A r.w.s.\n47,55,629/-\nliii\nAssessed Book Profit\n820,03,81,663/-\n13.2 Since, the tax liability u/s.115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961 of the assessee\ncompany will come less than the tax on regular income, the tax liability of the\nassessee company is worked out under normal provisions of Income.\n14. Assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Disallowances u/s.14A r.w.s.\n47,55,629/-\nliii\nAssessed Book Profit\n820,03,81,663/-\n\n13.2 Since, the tax liability u/s.115JB of the I.T. Act, 1961 of the assessee\ncompany will come less than the tax on regular income, the tax liability of the\nassessee company is worked out under normal provisions of Income.\n\n14. Assessed u/s 143(3

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

disallowance under section\n37(1). Accordingly, the directions of the Hon'ble DRP are bad in law\nand ought to be quashed. Consequently, the final assessment order\ndated 27 June 2024, is bad in law and ought to be quashed.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nVs. Panvel Circle, Panvel\nRespondent\n2\nITA No.1778/PUN/2024\nSempertrans India Private Limited\n2. On the facts

V.R. SUKHWANI PROJECTS,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1750/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 V.R.Sukhwani Projects, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.B-1205, S Circle-2, Pune Amar Business Zone, Baner, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqfv3888H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Miss Sailee Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 22.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 04.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

disallowing the claim of Rs 1,53,39,381/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) NFAC has erred in confirming that interest to be levied under section 234B

NANASAHEB BHAGAWAN SASAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

234B and 234C is calculated. 3. Aggrieved by such rectification order passed by the Ld. AO/CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee upholding only the proportionate TDS credit allowed by the Ld. AO/CPC by observing as under : 3 ITA No.722/PUN/2025, AY 2022-23 “4.8 The ground of appeal

SIDHESH MOHAN RAIKAR,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.294/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

disallowance has been adjudicated in para 5.1 of this order, therefore, the AO is directed to recompute the interest payable under the provisions of section 234B & 234C in the Order Giving Effect accordingly. The Appeal filed on this ground is partly allowed for statistical purposes. TAX DEPAN 6. In the result, the appeal is Partly allowed for statistical purposes

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

disallowance.", "held": "The Tribunal, in this quantum appeal, held that the housing project was not completed within the stipulated five-year period from the end of the financial year of approval. Consequently, the assessee was ineligible for the deduction under Section 80IB(10). Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "80IB(10)", "115JC", "271(1)(c)", "133A

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act, 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5. The grounds of appeal No.1 to 3 and 14 being general, are dismissed. The grounds of appeal No.13 which is related to levy of penalty u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act being mandatory and consequential in nature, is dismissed

TATA TOYO RADIATOR LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY 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 & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.152/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tata Toyo Radiator Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Taco House, V.G. Damle Path, Off Law College Road, Deccan Gymkhana, Pune- 411004. Pan : Aaact5566F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. D. Sancheti Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Ultra Vires, Illegal, Bad In Law & Contrary To The Provisions Of The Act. Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Thus Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Granting A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard, Thereby Violating The Principles Of Natural Justice.

disallowance made by the AO of administrative services charges of Rs. 7,56,99,000 paid to Tata AutoComp Systems Ltd. ["TACO"]. Excess-levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 6. The learned CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating on the levy of excess interest under section 234B of the Act to the extent of Rs.34,671. Excess

RAMESH GARWARE CHARITY TRUST,PUNE vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.776/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ramesh Garware Charitable V The Exemption Ward- Trust, S. 1(1), Pune. P B Box 3, Ramesh Garware Farm, Nda Road, Khadakwasla, Pune – 411023. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatr6365D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dalpat Shah – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax[Jcit(A)], Thiruvanantpura Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 14.08.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Disallowance of Deduction U/sec 11(2) of Rs.74,49,246/- On the facts and circumstances of the case, the said CIT(Appeals) erred in not allowing deduction claimed of accumulation of Rs. 74,49,246/- under section 11(2) of the Income tax Act following the assessment order for A.Y 2017-18 ignoring the fact that the provisions of section

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance of expenses incurred for unrestricted educational grant provided to IFMER, by holding that the said grants were utilized for the purpose of providing freebies to the healthcare professionals such as travel, stay, etc. which are prohibited as per The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct. Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (MCI Regulations) and not deductible under Explanation 1 to section

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance of expenses incurred for unrestricted educational grant provided to IFMER, by holding that the said grants were utilized for the purpose of providing freebies to the healthcare professionals such as travel, stay, etc. which are prohibited as per The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct. Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (MCI Regulations) and not deductible under Explanation 1 to section

SHAH CONSTRUCTIO,SATARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-SATARA, SATARA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.617/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shah Construction, Vs Acit, Satara Parag, 286 2, Circle, Satara Budhwar Peth, Tal Karad, Dist Satara- 415110 Maharashtra Pan-Aaffs0461E Appellant Respondent

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of deduction of Rs. 67.25,256/- made under section 801A, Considering the genuine hardship faced the appellant firm the addition made rejecting the claim under section 801A be deleted. 4. On the facts

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ENTERPRISEDB SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 989/Pun/2023 & Co No. 008/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

234B of the Act on the demand raised by the learned DCIT. 11. The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on the ground raised by the Respondent with respect to the wrongful initiation of the penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act by the learned DCIT. 3. During the course of hearing, both the parties to the dispute

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR vs. MOHOL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPURVAGHA SANSTHA MARYADIT, MOHOL

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

3) of the IT Act and allowed ground No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee, and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of disallowance under section 80P(2) of the IT Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed ground No.3 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes and directed the Assessing Officer to delete