DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

disallowed. The CIT(A) considered various decisions and by relying the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Compaq Electric Ltd. reported in (2011) 16 taxmann.com 385 (Kar.) held the principal amount of loan waived would neither be chargeable to tax u/s. section 41 (1) of the Act nor u/s 28

NITIN DWARKADAS NYATI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

28,153/- which is the share of profit in firm, dividend and interest on PPF. However, the assessee has not disallowed any amount towards expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of total income. According to the Assessing Officer as per provisions of section

AZIZUDDIN LATIPHODDIN KAZI L/H OF DECEASED LATIPHODDIN AJIMODDIN KAZI,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, LATUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.835/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Azizuddin Latiphoddin Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Deceased Latiphoddin Vs Ward-4, Latur. Ajimoddin Kazi, . Block No.71, Kazi Nivas, Dastagir Galli, Tal. Ahmedpur, Latur – 413515. Pan: Aynpk5231E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P P Kulkarni – Ar Revenue By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/08/2023

disallowance. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a benevolent circular to all the authorities working under the Act that such receipt of additional compensation u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 as the it was not interest but additional compensation and also was exempt

FCA INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED (SURVIVING ENTITY AFTER THE MERGER OF PCA MOTORS PVT LTD),PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowances are reflected in line-item no.23 in Schedule BP under the heading "Any other item or items of addition under section 28

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

28 to 43B in relation to the computation of income of an assessee engaged in the life insurance business, the provisions of section 14A have no application while computing the income under Chapter IV, we are of the considered opinion that resort to provisions of section 14A cannot be made while computing the income of insurance company

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

28 to 43B in relation to the computation of income of an assessee engaged in the life insurance business, the provisions of section 14A have no application while computing the income under Chapter IV, we are of the considered opinion that resort to provisions of section 14A cannot be made while computing the income of insurance company

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

28,82,393/- being 30% of Rs.4,29,41,308/- u/s 40(a)(ia)\nof the Act and disallowance of Rs.49,93,112/- u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act in the ITR\nfiled for assessment year 2018-19. However, in computation of total income the\nassessee made disallowance of Rs.67,00,054/- only instead of Rs.1

THE PIMPALGAON MERCHANTS CO.OP. BANK LTD.,,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

28,78,790/- u/s.\n14A of the Act is uncalled for. To this extent, we set aside the\nfinding of Ld.CIT(A) and delete the disallowance u/s.14A of\nthe Act at 128,78,790/-. Remaining disallowance u/s.14A of\nthe Act i.e. ₹2,87,590/-, remains sustained. Grounds of\nappeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed.\n8. In the result

BNY MELLON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS (INDIA) PVT LTD,PUNE vs. I.T.O , CPC BANGALURU, BANGULURU

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

Section 28, it solely\nINDICATES that the amounts are to be disallowed. The Appellant has mentioned the Tax\nAudit Details

SHREE SHIV SAHYADRI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shree Shiv Sahyadri Nagari V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Pathanstha S Ward-7(3), Pune. Maryadit, Sai Park Road, Dighi, Pune – 411015. Pan: Aaeas1417N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak Sasar – Ar Revenue By Smt. Shabana Parveen – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.06.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.15,60,115/- Claimed By The Appellant U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Alternatively, The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant From The Investments In A Co-Operative Bank Is Also Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant Crave Leave To Add, Delete, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw All Or Any One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P during relevant years 2018-19 and 2019-20 on grounds of late filing of return was unjustified. In the case of Lunidhar Seva SahkariMandali Ltd.149 taxmann.com 28

CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ELPHINSTONE ROAD-WEST, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1454/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Cma Cgm Agencies India Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Private Limited, One International Centre, Tower-3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone Road- West, Mumbai- 400013. Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mahenov Thakkar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Patil Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.4,86,77,518/- 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ao’) & Holding That Payment Of It Services To Be In The Nature Of Royalty Under Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act/ Fees For Technical Services Under Section 9(1)(Vii) Of The Act;

disallowing the payment of leased line /data link charges paid by the assessee for non deduction of tax at source by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. This issue is no more res integra as the same is settled in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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

28,401/- by making two disallowances in the assessment order viz. (a) disallowance of employee‘s share of provident contribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs.16,61,049/- and (b) disallowance of education cess claimed as deduction u/s 37 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,22,79,936/-. It is an undisputed fact that the Return

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

AJINKYA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SEVAK SAH. PATSANSTHA, MARYADIT,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of deduction claimed\nChapter VIA of the Act, was made by the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f.\n01.04.2021. The present case before us pertains to assessment year 2019-\n20 (previous year 2018-19). It can be readily inferred, therefore, that an\nassessee will not be hit by provisions of Section 80AC of the Act, having\nregard to the assessee claim

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5,SANGLI., SANGLI. vs. SHREE GANESH NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT, ASHTA,, ASHTA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2375/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent C. O. No.49/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2375/Pun/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Ganesh Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

28 of the IT Act. 3 C.O. No.49/PUN/2025 3. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the written submission furnished by the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under :- “7.6 The appellant stated that as per the bylaws

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

AMJ LAND HOLDINGS LTD.,PUNE vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Amj Land Holdings Limited Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Vs. Thergaon, Pune – 411033 Cpc, Bengaluru Pan: Aabcp0310Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

disallowed an amount of Rs.1,64,120/- out of Rs.2,28,590/- against the payment of employees contribution towards superannuation fund. A rectification application filed by the assessee was dismissed by the CPC. 3. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under: “4. I have considered the facts and circumstances

FLEETGUARD FILTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.921/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Fleetguard Filters Private The Dy.Commissioner Of Limited, V Income Tax, Circle-1(1), 136, Park Marina Road, S Pune. Baner, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aaace3125C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad A Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P. Sathe – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2024 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(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For Ay 2016-17 Dated 23/06/2023,Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 19.12.2018.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “A. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Made A Mistake In Disallowing The Payment Made For Gratuity To Its Employees Amounting To Rs 28.28,922/-. Fleetguard Filters Private Limited [A]

28,922/- was not an allowable expenditure as 2 Fleetguard Filters Private Limited [A] “provision for gratuity fund has already been allowed”. Also as per section 40A(7), direct payments to the employee through profit and loss account is not allowable when the payment to gratuity fund was allowed as deduction. Therefore, the AO disallowed