M/S. SHIVAMM INDUSTRIES,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.393/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Shivamm Industries, The Dy.Commissioner Of Plot 76, Arihant Heights, Sector Vs Income Tax, Circle-8, No.25, Pradhikaran Nigdi, Pune. Pune – 411044. Pan: Aaefs 0458 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 15/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee I.E. Shivamm Industries For A.Y. 2013-14 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Of Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 21.03.2023 Emanating From Assessing Officer’S Order Under Section 154 Of The Act Dated 22.03.2021. The Ground Of Appeal Are As Under : “1. The Order Dated 21/03/2023 Bearing No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051048828[L] Passed Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 By The Hon’Ble Cit[Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Is Excessive, M/S.Shivamm Industries [A]

36(1)(va), the actual payment is delayed and deposited on 20.7.2017. The legislature, for the disallowance under sub-clause (iv) of section

M/S. THE KOTHARI WHEELS ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CPC,BANGALORE, BANGLORE

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

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va), the actual payment is delayed and deposited on 20.7.2017. The legislature, for the disallowance under sub-clause (iv) of section

RAVINDRA DNYANESHWR BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

36(1)(va), the actual payment is delayed and deposited on 20.7.2017. The legislature, for the disallowance under sub-clause (iv) of section

GORIBI ABDUL KARIM NADAF,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ADDL JCIT (A) -1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

36(1)(va), the actual payment is delayed and deposited on 20.7.2017. The legislature, for the disallowance under sub-clause (iv) of section

GORIBI ABDUL KARIM NADAF,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ADDL JCIT (A) 1 - AHMEDABAD, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ADDL/JCIT (A) AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

36(1)(va), the actual payment is delayed and deposited on 20.7.2017. The legislature, for the disallowance under sub-clause (iv) of section

RAVINDRA DNYANESHWAR BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

36(1)(va), the actual payment is delayed and deposited\non 20.7.2017. The legislature, for the disallowance under sub-clause\n(iv) of section

BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

iv. Depreciation Claim v. Default in TDS vi. Default in TDS & Disallowance for such Default vii. Refund Claim viii. Business Loss ix. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment x. Disallowance u/s 40A(7) (Gratuity provision) xi. Expenses incurred for Earning Exempt Income xii. Excess Contribution to Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund xiii. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xiv. Business

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/ adjustment was made by\nITSC in relation to such interest claimed while passing the order. The\naddition made by the AO is directed to be deleted. These grounds of appeal\nare ALLOWED.\n7. On a careful perusal of the order of Ld.CIT(A), we do not see any\ninfirmity in allowing the claim of the assessee as the claim

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

iv) in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected." (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.” (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions

INDUS BIOTECH LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

disallowance of Section\n143(1)(a)(iv). When the due date under Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) is\njudicially

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1) (va) are satisfied

M/S SARGAM RETAILS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CPC , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x) - unless the conditions spelt by Explanation to Section 36(1) (va) are satisfied

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

iv) additional surcharge calculated in the manner provided in the Schedule. Read in this way the additional charges form a part of the income tax and super tax‖ 21. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court, therefore, has decided the issue in favour of the revenue and held that surcharge and additional surcharge are part of the income- tax. At this stage

SOLAPUR DCC BANK EMPLOYEES CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), SOLAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 713/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Solapur Dcc Bank Employees Co-Op Society Ltd., 46 Vistarit Imarat, Yogeshwar Complex, Solapur Zilla Madhyawarat Bank, Navi Peth Solapur – 413001 Pan: Aabas9454N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section under which any disallowance is made while computing business income u/c IV-D of the Act, the assessee remains entitle to the claim a deduction u/c VI-A of the Act against such enhanced business profit/income arisen on account of any such disallowance made. 11. In similar case of disallowance i.e. disallowance u/s 36(1

BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Bajaj Finance Limited Pcit-3, Pune 3Rd Floor, Panchshil Tech Park, Vs. Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aabcb1518L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2026

iv) Addition on account of Fee for Technical service Rs.24,30,603/- v) Addition on account of Fee for Technical service Rs.58,788/- vi) Addition on the basis of Form No.15CA Rs.4,35,12,640/- 3 4. Subsequently the Ld. PCIT examined the record and upon verification found that certain issues on which prima facie disallowance should have been made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed the same u/s 37 of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,22,86,304/-. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee submitted that the reasons for reopening were communited to the assessee after 11 months of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act although the assessee

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act, the pharmaceutical company i.e\nEmcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. has routed the expense of providing of\nfreebies through the assessee trust as it enables the Emcure\nPharmaceuticals Ltd. to claim an otherwise inadmissible expense as\ndeduction. Such act of the assessee trust of carrying the activity of\nproviding freebies at the behest of the pharmaceutical

PRADEEP RAMKRISHNA ROTE,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3) JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

IV & Anr.1 was the lead matter while hearing this batch of appeals. However, the parties agreed to treat Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax-12 as the lead appeal, for convenience. In all these appeals, the common question involved is with respect to the interpretation of Section 36(1) (va) and Section 43B of the Income