MAHARASHTRA SCOOTERS LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(5), PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance of Rs.78,21,239/-; representing 0.5% of average value of investment under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ASSOCIATED DAIRY FAB PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Associated Dairy Fab Pvt. Ltd., B-5/1, Midc Area, Ajantha Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalgaon – 425003 …. Pan: Aaeca3963F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Jalgaon

section 143(3)(ii) of Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.177/PUN/2014 has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding

ASSOCIATED DAIRY FAB PVT. LTD.,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Associated Dairy Fab Pvt. Ltd., B-5/1, Midc Area, Ajantha Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalgaon – 425003 …. Pan: Aaeca3963F Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 2, Jalgaon

section 143(3)(ii) of Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The cross appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA No.177/PUN/2014 has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding

SHRI MURLI MANOHAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,MAHAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.934/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Murli Manohar Nagari V Income Tax Officer. Sahakaripatsansthamaryadit, S. 1295, Pimpal Par, M.G.Road, Juni Peth, Mahad, Mahad – 402301. Maharashtra. Pan: Aabas5404L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anup Shaha Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is 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 A.Y.2017-18, Dated 11.03.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 263 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, Dated 17.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 263 dated 17.03.2023 deserves to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, it be held the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of Ld. AO disallowing deduction of 1,62,28,239

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowance in the revised return. The Assessing Officer further conveniently ignored the deductions of ₹.8.165 crores claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income. 23. As far as the technical glitch and last hour rush and consequently whether the return filed by the assessee with a delay of two minutes can be considered as the return filed

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE vs. SHRADDHA & PRASAD JOINT VENTURE,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2665/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Pune. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

Section 194C were not applicable for the purpose of TDS, without appreciating the fact that the work contract order was issued in the name of the assessee (JV) and re-allocation of the contract between the members of the JV would amount to sub-contracting. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SOFT TECH ENGINEERS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2581/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant Soft Tech Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Income Vs Unit-5A, The Pentagon, Tax, Shahu College Road, Near Satara Circle-6, Pune. Road, Telephone Exchange, Pune – 411009. Pan: Aaccs 3857 L Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 06/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune’S Order Dated 30.05.2017 ,Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Amount Of Rs.3,13,93,146/- Being Claim For Professional Fees & Contracting Expenses & Rs.61,03,239/- Being Managerial Expenses Relating To Software Development While The Same Should Be Capitalized & Not To Be Allowed As Revenue Expenses.

section 143(3) on 07.12.2016 determining the income at Rs.7,50,33,345/- after making the following additions: i) Professional fees treated as Capital in nature Rs.3,13,93,146/- ii) interest & Managerial Remuneration treated as Capital in nature Rs. 61,03,239/- iii) Disallowance

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

disallowed a sum of Rs.1,09,33,329/- for the assessment year 2007-08 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4 Kumar Kondiba Shingare 7. Aggrieved with the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed the appeals before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed a written submission explaining that

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

disallowed a sum of Rs.1,09,33,329/- for the assessment year 2007-08 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4 Kumar Kondiba Shingare 7. Aggrieved with the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed the appeals before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed a written submission explaining that

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

disallowed a sum of Rs.1,09,33,329/- for the assessment year 2007-08 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4 Kumar Kondiba Shingare 7. Aggrieved with the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed the appeals before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed a written submission explaining that

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

disallowed a sum of Rs.1,09,33,329/- for the assessment year 2007-08 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4 Kumar Kondiba Shingare 7. Aggrieved with the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed the appeals before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed a written submission explaining that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. KUMAR KONDIBA SHINGARE,, PUNE

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

disallowed a sum of Rs.1,09,33,329/- for the assessment year 2007-08 invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4 Kumar Kondiba Shingare 7. Aggrieved with the above order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed the appeals before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed a written submission explaining that

M/S. R R KAPOOR COMPANY,AHMEDNAGAR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

section 37 disallowing the said sum. I however on going through the record notice that the assessee turnover is approximately Rs.19.00 crore. The assessee is in the regular course of business and applied for contract with PWD. It is evident that the assessee had refused to carry out the contract. The refusal can be for many reasons like lesser contract

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

239/-, respectively. 3. It further emerges with the able assistance coming from both the parties that this Tribunal’s common order in assessee’s appeal ITA Nos. 78, 67 & 68/PUN/2024 dated 16.05.2024 had already restored the very twin issues back to the Assessing Officer for afresh appropriate adjudication. Both the parties could hardly dispute that there is no factual

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

239/-, respectively. 3. It further emerges with the able assistance coming from both the parties that this Tribunal’s common order in assessee’s appeal ITA Nos. 78, 67 & 68/PUN/2024 dated 16.05.2024 had already restored the very twin issues back to the Assessing Officer for afresh appropriate adjudication. Both the parties could hardly dispute that there is no factual

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGALI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

239/-, respectively. 3. It further emerges with the able assistance coming from both the parties that this Tribunal’s common order in assessee’s appeal ITA Nos. 78, 67 & 68/PUN/2024 dated 16.05.2024 had already restored the very twin issues back to the Assessing Officer for afresh appropriate adjudication. Both the parties could hardly dispute that there is no factual

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

239/-, respectively. 3. It further emerges with the able assistance coming from both the parties that this Tribunal’s common order in assessee’s appeal ITA Nos. 78, 67 & 68/PUN/2024 dated 16.05.2024 had already restored the very twin issues back to the Assessing Officer for afresh appropriate adjudication. Both the parties could hardly dispute that there is no factual

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

239/-, respectively. 3. It further emerges with the able assistance coming from both the parties that this Tribunal’s common order in assessee’s appeal ITA Nos. 78, 67 & 68/PUN/2024 dated 16.05.2024 had already restored the very twin issues back to the Assessing Officer for afresh appropriate adjudication. Both the parties could hardly dispute that there is no factual

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,SANGALI vs. ACIT, SANGALI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

239/-, respectively. 3. It further emerges with the able assistance coming from both the parties that this Tribunal’s common order in assessee’s appeal ITA Nos. 78, 67 & 68/PUN/2024 dated 16.05.2024 had already restored the very twin issues back to the Assessing Officer for afresh appropriate adjudication. Both the parties could hardly dispute that there is no factual