VIJAY VYANKATRAO MANE,SADASHIV PEATH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER , ADDL/JCIT(A)- CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

260/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act by the CPC passing intimation dated 01.08.2016 wherein the CPC made disallowance of Rs.33,53,759/-. 2 3. Before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), it was submitted that the variance made by the CPC is due to the interest paid by the assessee. It was submitted that since there

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

260/- is unjustified and contrary to law, and hence liable to be deleted. Amount of disallowance of ₹6,740/- is accepted and will be paid according to the direction of income tax department. 2. Ground on Addition Under Section

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

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

260 (SC)] (Tata Tea decision') was not dealing with the nature of DOT as to whether it is tax on the company or a tax on the shareholder. Thus, the Tata Tea decision does not support the cause of assesses, having regard to the well settled principle that a judicial precedent is only "an authority for what it actually decides

UMAKANT GAJANAN FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.863/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Umakant Gajanan Foundation, V The Income Tax Officer, E-3/5, Shirine Garden, Opp.Iti, S Ward-1(1), Pune. Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatu5190M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) – Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 11.02.2025 for the A.Y.2023-24 emanating from the order u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 02/12/2024. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.863/PUN/2025 [A] “1] The learned Addl. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,64,260/- made by the learned CPC without appreciating that

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

section 40A (2) of the Act. The assessee i.e NLT had received services from TACL in respect of which payment had been made as per documentary evidence on record and thus, there was no warrant for disallowance paid to TACL by the assessee when the payment was adjudged on the principle of commercial expediency when viewed from the point

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

disallowance of INR 4,50,70,798 under u/s 14A of the Act r.w rule 8D(2)(ii) be deleted. Ground 10: Additional relief under section 90 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the AU based on the directions of Ld. DRP erred in disregarding Appellant’s claim for additional relief under section

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

260 and Net gain will be Rs.250 (sale price Rs.260-Purchase price Rs.10). Also application form for subscribing the shares was attached with the said email. The image of this file is reproduced by the Assessing Officer at page 3 of the assessment order. Subsequently, it was found that M/s. Anax Com Trade Ltd. has been merged with M/s. Yamini Investment

NARHARI MAHARAJ MAJOOR SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD,JALGAON vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1458/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vs Ito, Ward Narhari Maharaj Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., 1(4), Jalgaon C/O Bhagyesh Hari Dhakane, 18, Pitashri, Gruhkul Colony, Midc, Jalgaon-425001 Maharashtra Pan-Aaaan6252G Appellant Respondent

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of Rs. 18,98,260/- made by CPC, Bangalore for delay in filing the I.T. return for A.Y. 2018- 19 without considering that such powers were given to CPC by making necessary amendment in section

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [(2000)(243 ITR 83(SC)]. wherein it was clearly held that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPERS LIMITED,, PUNE

The appeal of the Revenue is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2445/Pun/2017 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle–6, Pune. . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Sakal Paper Ltd., 595, Budhwar Peth, Pune – 411 002 Pan :Aaccs7605Q . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kothary Revenue By : Shri Ramnath Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 13/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, [For Short ‘Cit-(A)’] Dt. 22/06/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year [For Short ‘Ay’] 2011-12. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 6

260/- as against foregoing assessed income on account of disallowance u/s 14A and claim of chapter VI-A made u/s 80IA of the Act. 2.3 Subsequently by service of notice u/s 148 on 04/03/2016 the was reopened and the income of the assessee re-assessed at ₹7,12,34,270/- u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order

KIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC COMPANY LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1569/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

260/-. Case selected for scrutiny under CASS and valid notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly served upon the assessee. So far as the issue on hand is concerned, ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed exempt income of Rs.3,78,18,307/- and suo moto disallowed Rs.2,58,000/- u/s.14A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40(a)(ii) by insertion of Explanation 3 w.e.f. 01-04-2005, reading as under : “Explanation 3 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of this sub-clause, the term ‘tax’’ shall include and shall be deemed to have always included any surcharge or cess, by whatever name called, on such

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40(a)(ii) by insertion of Explanation 3 w.e.f. 01-04-2005, reading as under : “Explanation 3 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of this sub-clause, the term ‘tax’’ shall include and shall be deemed to have always included any surcharge or cess, by whatever name called, on such

BHIMASHANKAR SSK LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT- CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1147/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13 Bhimashankar Ssk Ltd., V The Acit, A/P. Pargaon, Tal.Ambegaon, S Circle-8, Pune. Dist-Pune – 412406. Pan: Aaaab0949G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hanmant Dattatry Dhavle – Ar Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 23.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law Of The Learned Nfac –Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Delhi, Has Erred In Disallowing & Adding Back An Amount Of Rs.42,23,17,760/- On Account F Excess Cane Price Paid Farmers.

disallowance of Rs.71,99,260/- which does not warrant any interference. Ground No.2 on the issue is therefore, not allowed.” 7.1 Thus, it is the contention of the Revenue that Assessee has failed to submit the specific details. 8. It is noted that ld.AR submitted that it is a customary practice to sale sugar at concessional rate to the Farmers

R B DIAMOND HOUSE,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-1, RANGE -25, CIRCLE -1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 69A.\nGround No. 6: Interest Disallowance Rs.1,54,43,569/-\n6.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have\nconsidered and deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,54,43,569/-\nbeing\ninterest on Cash Credit facility as the Cash Credit facility was\nproperly reflected

KAI J M PATIL SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,NANDURBAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 DHULE, DHULE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1196/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kai J M Patil Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1, Dhule. 27, Datta Bhavan, Old Mohida Road, Shriram Colony, Nandurbar – 425409. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaabk0540R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sharad A. Shahsh – Ar Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2014-15 on 04.03.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order u/s.147 of the ITA No.1196/PUN/2025 [A] Act, dated 19.08.2021. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld. AO erred in (CIT-A erred in confirming) making the disallowance of claim of Rs.13,62,260

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance is special bench\ndecision in the case of Wall Street Construction (supra) which stands reversed by\nHon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Lokhandwala\nConstruction Industries Limited (260 ITR 579) which holds good even today. The\nproviso to Section

AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of 5 mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. [(2000) (243 ITR 83(SC)], wherein it was clearly held that