OLIVE TREE TRADING PVT LTD,PUNE vs. ITO, CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

2)/142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee calling for certain information mentioned therein. Since, no response to the said show cause notice was submitted by the assessee, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) based on the ITR and the audit report concluded the assessment u/s 144 of the Act at an assessed income of Rs.3

YOGIRAJ NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1152/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2020-21

249, Bhagyashri Chambers, Vidhate Murkute Vasti, Baner, Pune 411 019 Maharashtra PAN : AAAAY0900A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rohit Kasat Revenue by : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date of hearing 06.06.2024 : Date of pronouncement : 06.06.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

249/-. It is not in\ndispute that deduction has not been denied by the CPC for\nnon-fulfillment of the conditions by the assessee which are\nrequired as per the provisions of section 10AA of the Act. The\nalleged exemption has been disallowed by the CPC solely for\ndelay in filing the original return and that too, which is\ndelayed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

249/-. It is not in\ndispute that deduction has not been denied by the CPC for\nnon-fulfillment of the conditions by the assessee which are\n\nrequired as per the provisions of section 10AA of the Act. The\nalleged exemption has been disallowed by the CPC solely for\ndelay in filing the original return and that too, which

SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS ,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saitawadekarjewellers, The Pr.Cit, Pune-1. 1825, B2 Padma Talkies Bldg, Vs Opp.Urban Bank Bazar Peth, Chiplun – 415605. Pan : - Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assesseeisdirected Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1Dated 22.11.2022Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 27.11.2017Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pcit In His Order U/S 263, While Giving Effect To The Order Dtd.31.05.2022 Of The Honorable Itat, Erred In Making The Following Additions To The Income Determined Vide Assessment Order Saitawadekar Jewellers [A]

Disallowance on account alleged cash payments in violation of Section 40A(3). even though, as was substantiated in the submission to the Ld. PCIT, there isneither any violation of S.40A (3) nor the excess income declared during surveyhas remained to be disclosed, which fact was duly examined by the AO duringthe assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). The appellant therefore prays

BHUJBAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee stand DISMISSED on above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 0756/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Bhujbal Construction Company Gat No. 12/29, Someshwar Wadi, Pashan, Haveli, Baner Rd., Pune. Pan: Aaffb7317L . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)Pune-1. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the assessment vide order dt. 22/03/2016 was accordingly framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3.2 Aggrieved thereby assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on 15/01/2022, which came to be dismissed in-limine as barred by limitation. Further aggrieved by impugned order the assessee firm set-up the present

ROXILER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD5(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

2. CIT vs. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.). 3. CIT-1 vs. AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd., [2012] 205 Taxman 11 (Mad.) (HC). 4. CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd., [2009] 317 ITR 249 (Del.) (HC). Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee had not filed the Audit Report in form 10CCB within the statutory time

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO LIQUIDHUB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An 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.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

2 STT 226 (SC) 20051 xiv. Pertaining to interpretation of the term 'suppression' - P.M. Perianna Pillai v. Commissioner (Commercial Taxes) (1980) 46 STC 94 (Mad.) xv. Pertaining to interpretation of the term 'suppression' - State of Tamil Nadu v. Sri Swamy and Company (1977) 39 STC 85 (Mad.) xvi. Pertaining to non-applicability of penal consequence in case of acceptance

BABASAHEB BHAGAWAN ATKIRE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, S.No.50/3, Flat No.9, Floor No.1, Pune Kure Plazapune, Opp. Konark Pooram Main Gate, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune 411048, Maharashtra Pan : Afepa8628K Appellant Respondent

disallowed Rs.28,31,073/- being the difference of Market Value and the Agreement Value, details of which are shown in page 2 and 3 of the Assessment Order. Ld. Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.66,640/- on account of delayed payment of PF/ESIC. 7. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but assessee failed to appear before ld.CIT

KOLHAPUR ZILLA KRISHI KARMACHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , KOLHAPUR

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

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

2 ITA No.1763/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a society engaged in the business of banking/providing credit/loan facilities to its members. It filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 on 07.09.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During

MAHATMA FULE GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SHAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,KHED vs. ITO WARD8(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2167/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

disallowing section 80P deduction if return is not filed before the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) is not permitted in the A.Y. 2019-20. However, the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) invoking the provisions of section 249(2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance has formed the basis of Imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be." In this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance has formed the basis of Imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be." In this

BABASAHEB BHAGAWAN ATKIRE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

disallowed Rs.28,31,073/- being the difference of Market\nValue and the Agreement Value, details of which are shown in\npage 2 and 3 of the Assessment Order. Ld. Assessing Officer also\nmade addition of Rs.66,640/- on account of delayed payment of\nPF/ESIC.\n7. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but\nassessee failed to appear before ld.CIT

RUPAL CHEMICALS,RATNAGIRI vs. ITO WARD 1, RATNAGIRI

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.2588/Pun/2025 नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Vs Ito, Ward 1, Rupal Chemicals, D/13, Midc, Lote Ratnagiri Parashuram, Taluka Khed, District Ratnagiri-415722 Maharashtra Pan-Aabfr7940R Appellant Respondent

section 144B of the IT Act and determined total income at Rs 2,15,56,510/- as against the income of ₹ 1,65,94,510/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of ₹ 49,62,000/- on account of disallowance of commission expenses of ₹ 49,62,000/-. 4 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowed, the Respondent had an excess application of Rs.5,79,77,998/- for the relevant Assessment Year. Therefore, even by doing so, there will be no income chargeable to tax for AY 2014-15. Just and proper relief be granted to the respondent in this respect. 3. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH ,PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowed, the Respondent had an excess application of Rs.5,79,77,998/- for the relevant Assessment Year. Therefore, even by doing so, there will be no income chargeable to tax for AY 2014-15. Just and proper relief be granted to the respondent in this respect. 3. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete

RAJUMAR PREMCHAND TULSANI,PUNE vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -5, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.136/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajkumar Premchand Tulsani, The Pr.Commissioner Of Sr.No.46/8, Bombay Pune V Income Tax-5, Pune. Road, Akurdi, Pune – 411038. S Pan: Aawpt 8002 B Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M.K.Kulkaani – Ar/Advocate Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Commissioner Of Income Tax. Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06/07/2023

disallow the discharge of this legal fiction which contrary to provision of law. The expenditure which assessee is entitled to pay by the provisions of law be allowed to the assessee by cancelling the Revision order passed under s. 263 of the Act. 5. The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARAD SATARA vs. THE KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD, KARAD SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 143(3) proceedings the AO disallowed excess expenditure of Rs 2,08,09,305/- claimed u/s 36(i)(viia) of the IT Act for which provision was not made in the books of account . The disallowance of expenditure was confirmed by CIT(A) as well as by this Tribunal . On the basis of this disallowance the then AO proceeded