HSBC SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

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

2) of the Act, read with rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the Assessing Officer needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo motu disallowance under section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where the assessee in his return

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

2. erred in upholding the order under section 143(3) read with section 154 of the Act dated 3 July 2023 holding that it is not crystal clear that the learned AO has accepted the Appellant's claim for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act without appreciating that the deduction was duly allowed vide earlier order under section

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

2. erred in upholding the order under section 143(3) read with section 154 of the Act dated 3 July 2023 holding that it is not crystal clear that the learned AO has accepted the Appellant's claim for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act without appreciating that the deduction was duly allowed vide earlier order under section

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2)(a) of the Act. Therefore, even if we assume that the penalty levied for disallowance of deduction of Health & Education cess to be under reported in consequence of misreporting then also the penalty levied in respect of disallowance of employee‘s contribution to PF on account of ―underreporting‖ of income is squarely covered under the provisions contained in section

MR VIKAS JAYRAM BHUKAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2483/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Pune. Survey No.34, House No.80, Azad Chowk, Opposite Ramma, Lohegaon, Near Gram Panchayat, Pune- 411047. Pan : Alqpb0811K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Singha Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Notice For Levy Of Penalty Was Defective Since No Specific Charge Of Violation, Was Made Out In The Notice & Thus The Consequent Penalty So Levied Be Kindly Deleted.

disallowed in computing the total income or loss of the assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment of the and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub-section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation

PRAJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

274 & 275/2, Pune Bhumkar Chowk-Hinjewadi Road, Vs. Hinjewadi, Pune-411057 PAN : AAACP6090Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Paresh Shaparia Department by : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date of hearing : 08-05-2024 Date of 27-06-2024 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

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

disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A of the Act. These decisions, therefore, limited their observations to the applicability of Section 14A of the Act on dividend income. Also, the G&B HC decision and the G&B SC decision have not laid down any principle contrary to those laid down by the Hon'ble SC in Tata Tea decision

M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 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)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

disallows certain expenditure incurred to earn exempt income from being deducted from other income which is includible in the “total income” for the purpose of chargeability to tax.” The views expressed in Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (supra), in our considered opinion, yet again militate against the plea urged on behalf of the Assessee. 34. For the aforesaid

SAMARTH NAGARI SHAKARI PATH SANSTHA MARYADIT,PARBHANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD ONE, JALNA

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

2. (a) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in disallowing the deduction of Rs.33,23,274/- under section

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

disallowance of the claim of\ndepreciation on goodwill arising to the assessee pursuant to the\namalgamation of YAPL and ADEPL with the assessee is concerned, we find\nthat the impugned issue is covered in favour of the assessee by catena of\ndecisions of various judicial forums including the Jurisdictional Bombay\nHigh Court as well as Jurisdictional Mumbai and Pune ITAT

COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

2) …… 3) …… 4) …… 5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the honourable CIT (Appeals) – III, Pune erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,19,706/- by applying the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 without appreciating the facts

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

2) of the Act were served.\nThe assessee company is engaged in manufacturing and sale\nof Internal Combustion Engines and is a 51% subsidiary of\nCummins Inc. USA. There were certain international\ntransactions and arms's length price (ALP) of such\ntransactions was required to be determined. With the\nnecessary approval of PCIT, reference was made to the Ld.\nTransfer

YAZAKI (I) P LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA YAZAKI AUTOCOMP LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.163/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act along with the said draft assessment order, thereby not following the mandate as laid down under section 144C of the Act. The Appellant prays that the said draft assessment order be held as void-ab-initio, bad in law and illegal and consequently the entire assessment ought to be quashed

URULIKANCHAN GRAMIN BIGARSHETY SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.554/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Urulikanchan Gramin Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. Bigarshety Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, At & Post Urulikanchan, Taluka- Haveli, Urulikanchan, Pune- 412202. Pan : Aaaau0866D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 09.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Provisions Of The Maharashtra

2 Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2018-19 was filed on 12.08.2018 declaring Rs.Nil income. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the claim for deduction of interest income earned

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

disallowance; (d) the amount of under-reported income represented by any addition made in conformity with the arm's length price determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. PRAJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED , PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2096/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2018-19

274 and 275/2, Bhumkar Chowk, Hinjewadi, Pune 411057, Maharashtra PAN : AAACP6090Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Amit Bobde Respondent by : Shri Paresh Shaparia Date of hearing : 28.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of Revenue pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 25.07.2025 framed

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

274/- remained unpaid which was not allowable under section 43B of the Act. Hence, the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and added to the total income of assessee. As the assessee had failed to furnish any submissions controverting the findings of Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) found no reason to interfere with the order of Assessing Officer

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

274/- remained unpaid which was not allowable under section 43B of the Act. Hence, the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and added to the total income of assessee. As the assessee had failed to furnish any submissions controverting the findings of Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) found no reason to interfere with the order of Assessing Officer