EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3075/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Cluster C, Wing 1, Eon Free Zone, Plot No.1, Sr. No.77, Midc Kharadi Knowledge Park, Kharadi ,Pune- 411 014. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aabce4323Q बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune Assessee By : Shri Vishal Karla Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules. 13. Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above and on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in not accepting the claim of the Appellant that only expenditure amounting to INR 78,301

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D(2)(iii) disallowance of administrative expenditure of Rs.1,44,88,051/- in relates to its exempt income. We note that the learned lower authorities have neither considered assessee’s suo moto expenditure of Rs.78,301

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR 1(1), PUNE vs. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.42 & 43/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 16-17 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. M/S.Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Cluster C Wing-1, Eon Zone, Midc Kharadi, Knowledge Park, Plot No.1, Survey No.77, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aabce 4323 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ss Tomar -Ar Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Twin Appeals For The Assessment Years 2015- 16 & 2016-17 Arise Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 29.05.2020, Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/02, Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle- 1(2), Pune/10142/2019-20/03 Respectively, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

section 14A r.w.s. Rule 8D(2)(iii) disallowance of administrative expenditure of Rs.1,44,88,051/- in relates to its exempt income. We note that the learned lower authorities have neither considered assessee’s suo moto expenditure of Rs.78,301

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

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

disallowed the claim as discussed in paras 5.1 and 5.2. 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Considering the fact that the said alternate claim is not made in original return of income, the Assessing Officer did not allow same. The Assessing Officer rejected the main claim u/s 35(2AB) of the Act for want of the approval of the DSIR

SHRI. DUDHGANGA VEDGANGA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1,, KOLHAPUR

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

disallowed under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, despite the fact that profit was one of the components in the price. 4. Referring to the facts and issues, the Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the assessees and Ld. Departmental Representatives representing the Department, submitted, at the outset, that the issue of excess sugarcane price raised in present

VAIDYANATH KEDESHWAR SAKHAR UDYOG,,BEED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE,, AHMEDNAGAR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

disallowed under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, despite the fact that profit was one of the components in the price. 4. Referring to the facts and issues, the Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the assessees and Ld. Departmental Representatives representing the Department, submitted, at the outset, that the issue of excess sugarcane price raised in present

SHREE ADINATH SSK LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , SOLAPUR

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

disallowed under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, despite the fact that profit was one of the components in the price. 4. Referring to the facts and issues, the Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the assessees and Ld. Departmental Representatives representing the Department, submitted, at the outset, that the issue of excess sugarcane price raised in present

SHREE CHHATRAPATI SHAHU SSK LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , KOLHAPUR

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

disallowed under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, despite the fact that profit was one of the components in the price. 4. Referring to the facts and issues, the Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the assessees and Ld. Departmental Representatives representing the Department, submitted, at the outset, that the issue of excess sugarcane price raised in present

SHREE CHHATRAPATI SHAHU SSK LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , KOLHAPUR

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

disallowed under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, despite the fact that profit was one of the components in the price. 4. Referring to the facts and issues, the Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the assessees and Ld. Departmental Representatives representing the Department, submitted, at the outset, that the issue of excess sugarcane price raised in present

LOKNETE BALASAHEB DESAI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE,, SATARA

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

disallowed under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, despite the fact that profit was one of the components in the price. 4. Referring to the facts and issues, the Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the assessees and Ld. Departmental Representatives representing the Department, submitted, at the outset, that the issue of excess sugarcane price raised in present

LOKNETE BALASAHEB DESAI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE,, SATARA

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

disallowed under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, despite the fact that profit was one of the components in the price. 4. Referring to the facts and issues, the Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the assessees and Ld. Departmental Representatives representing the Department, submitted, at the outset, that the issue of excess sugarcane price raised in present

LOKNETE BALASAHEB DESAI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE,, SATARA

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

disallowed under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, despite the fact that profit was one of the components in the price. 4. Referring to the facts and issues, the Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the assessees and Ld. Departmental Representatives representing the Department, submitted, at the outset, that the issue of excess sugarcane price raised in present

LOKNETE BALASAHEB DESAI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE,, SATARA

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

disallowed under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, despite the fact that profit was one of the components in the price. 4. Referring to the facts and issues, the Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the assessees and Ld. Departmental Representatives representing the Department, submitted, at the outset, that the issue of excess sugarcane price raised in present

SONHIRA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SANGLI

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

disallowed under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, despite the fact that profit was one of the components in the price. 4. Referring to the facts and issues, the Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the assessees and Ld. Departmental Representatives representing the Department, submitted, at the outset, that the issue of excess sugarcane price raised in present

SONHIRA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SANGLI

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

disallowed under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, despite the fact that profit was one of the components in the price. 4. Referring to the facts and issues, the Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the assessees and Ld. Departmental Representatives representing the Department, submitted, at the outset, that the issue of excess sugarcane price raised in present

HUTATMA KISAN AHIR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SANGLI

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

disallowed under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, despite the fact that profit was one of the components in the price. 4. Referring to the facts and issues, the Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the assessees and Ld. Departmental Representatives representing the Department, submitted, at the outset, that the issue of excess sugarcane price 3 Hutatma Kisan

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 :

disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the Assessment Order.It is an admitted fact that the Assessee is a co-operative credit society registered under Maharashtra Cooperative societies Act. 4. As per the submission of the Assessee dated 16.11.2019 made during

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND & SONS vs. JOINT COMMISSINER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

301/- against return from business income at Rs.46,90,306/-. Assessing Officer made a major addition of Rs.50,96,700/- on account of sale of stock made to its sister concern. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the excess interest paid to Shri Manish Jain amounting to Rs.4,86,837/-. Other additions/disallowances include the addition of Rs.2,39,399/- on account