VITTHAL SAHAKAR SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Ashta Chandra & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. / Ita Nos.1540/Pun/2024 / Assessment Year 2017-18 Shri Vitthal Sahakari Sakar Vs Acit Circle1, Solapur Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Gursale, Tal. Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur-413304 Maharashtra Pan-Aaaas3892H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr. Hanmant Dhavle (Ar) Revenue By Mr.Arvind Desai (Dr) Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 21/11/2024 Date Of 31/12/2024 Pronouncement / 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(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 30.04.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law Of The Learned National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac) Delhi Has Erred In Disallowing & Adding Back An Amount Of Rs.4,56,57,548/- On Account Of Excess Sugar Cane Price

section 36(1)(xvii) only the amount paid as per the price fixed by the government is allowed as deduction . Therefore, the AO was right in making the disallowance

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

section 35AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowing expenditure of Rs.9,79,25,959/- in respect of write off CWIP due to discontinuation of MB car model series W 124 3. Disallowance Rs.25,600/- paid towards membership fee of Poona Golf Club & Hyatt Regency New Delhi, paid for Managing Director & other executives as expenditure not for the purpose

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

section 35AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowing expenditure of Rs.9,79,25,959/- in respect of write off CWIP due to discontinuation of MB car model series W 124 3. Disallowance Rs.25,600/- paid towards membership fee of Poona Golf Club & Hyatt Regency New Delhi, paid for Managing Director & other executives as expenditure not for the purpose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2),, PUNE vs. M/S SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (TRUST), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

XVII. As regards to the prior period expenses, ld. CIT- DR submitted that ld. CIT(A) rightly confirmed the disallowed as the appellant society had not furnished anything before the 37 M/s. Sinhagad Technical Education Society Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) to justify the claim. 22. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material

CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE -1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cma Cgm Agencies India Private Vs. Dcit, Range-1(1), Limited, Pune 407, City Tower Floor, Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent

XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139. Section 195 of the Act provides that any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any interest or any other

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGALI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowance of alleged excess cane price subject to fulfillment of various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowance of alleged excess cane price subject to fulfillment of various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowance of alleged excess cane price subject to fulfillment of various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowance of alleged excess cane price subject to fulfillment of various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowance of alleged excess cane price subject to fulfillment of various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,SANGALI vs. ACIT, SANGALI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowance of alleged excess cane price subject to fulfillment of various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowance of alleged excess cane price subject to fulfillment of various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii

KRANTIAGANI DR G D BAPU LAD SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,KUNDAL vs. ACIT, SANGLI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

disallowance of alleged excess cane price subject to fulfillment of various conditions for assessment years prior to 2016-17. There is further no quarrel between the parties the legislature has also inserted section 36(1)(xvii

KARMYOGI SHANKARRAOJI PATIL SSK LTD.,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 411 & 412/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2012-13 Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd., A/P. Mahatmaphulenagar, Bijwadi, Tal. Indapur, Dist. - Pune Pin – 413106 Pan: Aaaai0225N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

Disallowance of excessive sugarcane price paid (Pg-33) : ‘6. Given all of the above facts, the AO is directed to recomputed the expenses made by the assesse for purchase of sugarcane as per the legislative intent inherent in the finance bill 2023, as an additional relief flowing from the amendment inserted in the shape of section 36(1)(xvii

KARMYOGI SHANKARRAOJI PATIL SSK LTD.,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 411 & 412/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2012-13 Karmyogi Shankarraoji Patil Ssk Ltd., A/P. Mahatmaphulenagar, Bijwadi, Tal. Indapur, Dist. - Pune Pin – 413106 Pan: Aaaai0225N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

Disallowance of excessive sugarcane price paid (Pg-33) : ‘6. Given all of the above facts, the AO is directed to recomputed the expenses made by the assesse for purchase of sugarcane as per the legislative intent inherent in the finance bill 2023, as an additional relief flowing from the amendment inserted in the shape of section 36(1)(xvii

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO LIQUIDHUB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 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], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

section 36(1)(va) of Capgemini (other than sr. no. 2) 5 4. Balance MAT Credit brought forward 5,67,32,85,499 ITA No.2753/PUN/2025 [A] 2.2 Ld.AR for the Assessee relied on the following case laws : “i. Copy of the order passed by the ITAT "A" Bench, Pune in the matter of Capgemini Technology Services India Limited [as successor

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. HEMANT BAGAREDDY MOTADOO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

36 to 57 of the paper book and the dates are as under: 1. Copy of Submission dated 22/01/2015 2. Copy of Submission dated 23/11/2015 3. Copy of Submission dated 10/12/2015 4. Copy of Submission dated 22/01/2016 5. Copy of Submission dated 01/02/2016 6. Copy of Submission dated 04/02/2016 6 7. Copy of Submission dated 16/02/2016 8. Copy of Submission

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

disallowance.” 38. Similarly, the reliance placed by the AO on Explanation to S. 69C of the Act would not be of any relevance as S. 69C would be applicable only in a case where the source of expenditure is not established and the assessee has claimed deduction in respect of such expenditure. In the present case, the source of expenditure