BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 36(1)(viii)).” 6.1 The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.70.86 crores u/s. 36(1)(viii). The Assessing Officer disallowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 36(1)(viii)).” 6.1 The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.70.86 crores u/s. 36(1)(viii). The Assessing Officer disallowed

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

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 Expenses 3. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. GRIHUM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

36(1)(viii) or not, is debatable, and such a debatable claim cannot be disallowed by way of an intimation under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

36,450/-. 5 Disallowance of sales and promotion expenditure of Rs.2,90,94,637/-. (j) Disallowance of Corporate Guarantee Commission of Rs.1,20,29,793/-. (k) Disallowance of deduction u/s 10AA of Rs.47,46,67,962/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order held that

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

viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision / judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” The above discussion makes it clear that the issue is a controversial one and is yet to attain finality. Therefore, being a controversial issue, this issue is beyond the ambit of provisions

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

viii. Taxability of business liability written off u/s 41 or any other section ix. Foreign Outward Remittance x. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xi. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A xii. Expenditure by Way of Penalty or Fine for Violation of any Law xiii. Securities Transaction 3. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s

COL R D NIKAM SAINIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,SATARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA CIRCLE,, SATARA

The appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.794/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Col R D Nikam Sainiksahakari The Asst. Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Satara Circle, Chh. Shivaji Maharaj Circle, Satara. Powai Naka, Satara – 415001. Pan: Aabas 2355 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Renuka Ghatge – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Isdirected Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune Dated 28.02.2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Form Number 36 Of Appeal Memo: “1. The Learned Assessing Office Is Not Justified In Adding The Liabilities & Capital Receipts Credited To General Reserve Totaling To Rs.6,73,807/- To The Total Income & Addition Should Be Deleted.

section 250of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short “the Act”). The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in form number 36 of appeal memo: “1. The learned assessing office is not justified in adding the Liabilities and Capital receipts credited to General Reserve totaling to Rs.6,73,807/- to the total income and addition should be deleted

SHETH CHIMANLAL GOVINDDAS MEMORIAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallow the entire investment of Rs 32,75,0007-\nand tax it at the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR). The FAO was also\nrequired to reject the assessee's claim of deduction u/s 11 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the interest earned from this\nimpermissible investment which is, as per Schedule 3 (List of interest\nreceived/accrued

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

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

section 36(1)(viii) in the original assessment order in light of the income assessed at a higher amount and hence, the question of the learned AO having not applied his mind does not arise. 5 ITA.No.413/PUN./2022 Bajaj Finance Limited, Pune. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub- section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed." 5.6 Thus, when the appellant has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars, conditions laid down in Explanation-1 (supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

36(1)(vii a) have also been denied. The contention of the assessee was that these provisions are applicable to Public Financial Institutions (PFI) and the assessee company do not fall under that category. 7, In addition to the above contentions there was no dispute that the independent code is enacted by the introduction

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

36(1)(vii a) have also been denied. The contention of the assessee was that these provisions are applicable to Public Financial Institutions (PFI) and the assessee company do not fall under that category. 7, In addition to the above contentions there was no dispute that the independent code is enacted by the introduction

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

section 12AB of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while raising the issue of challenging the powers available in section 12AB of the Act made threefold contentions and the same are :\n(a)\nthat in absence of express powers provided u/s.12AB of the Act for cancelling the registration u/s.12A of the Act, notice issued on 21.03.2023 u/s.12AB

PUNE ZILHA MADHYAWATI SAKAKAK PUNE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.322/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pune Zilla Madhyawati V The Income Tax Officer, Sakakak, S Ward-6(3), Pune. 92 Ranjan Co-Op Society, Shukrawar Peth, Shukrawar Peth S.O., Pune – 411002. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatp6962E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue

disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80- IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

viii). Though a part of the income of the assessee qualified for deduction u/s.10A in the regular computation, but such deduction is not available in the computation of income u/s.115JB in view of the amended clause (f) 25 and IT(TP) A.No.10/Bang/2014 and clause (ii) of the Explanation 1 to section 115JB at the material time. Thus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

36,334/- to its income being inadmissible expenses as per the provisions of section 37 of the Act. However, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.9,49,88,101/- u/s 80G out of total 2 ITA No.1096/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 deduction of Rs.18,99,76,201/- (50% of Rs.18,99,76,201/-). Accordingly, the Ld. AO issued show cause notice

KARMAYOGI SR PARICHARAK MULTISTATE COOPERTIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PANDHARPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

In the result Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

VIII, any tax paid on self-assessment and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax, interest or fee; (d) an intimation shall be prepared or generated and sent to the assessee specifying the sum determined to be payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the assessee under clause (c); and (e) the amount of refund