UTTAM ENERGY LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE

Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2033/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Uttam Energy Limited, The Acit, Circle-12, Mahendra Chamber, Mayfair V Pune. Co-Op Housing Society, S A-4, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabcu4100H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ch Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane – Ar;S Revenue By Shri Deepak Garg – Cit Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Of The Learned Acit, Circle-12, Pune Passed U/Sec. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") After Giving Effect To The Learned Drp’S Order Dated 24.09.2019. 1.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 40A(2)(b), the payments made to the related parties to be disallowed.”However, in the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s

ADIENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68,19,249/- and Rs.5

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68,19,249/- and Rs.5

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68,19,249/- and Rs.5

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

disallowance made under section 40A (2) (b) on account of payment of administrative charges paid to TACL, the Tribunal recorded

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JALNA, JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

2) of section 40A." He submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) read with section 129 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 01.11.2016, the assessee company vide letter dated 10.11.2016 had submitted the Tax Audit Report of the assessee company along with the Tax Audit Report, Audited Balance

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED , JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

2) of section 40A." He submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) read with section 129 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 01.11.2016, the assessee company vide letter dated 10.11.2016 had submitted the Tax Audit Report of the assessee company along with the Tax Audit Report, Audited Balance

PRATAP NARAYAN DESAI,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

disallowed the claim of salary expenses of Rs.3.60 lakh given to the wife invoking section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Income

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

disallowable under section 40A(2)(a) as excessive and unreasonable. The CIT(A) held that the price actually paid for the procurement

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

disallowable under section 40A(2)(a) as excessive and unreasonable. The CIT(A) held that the price actually paid for the procurement

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

disallowable under section 40A(2)(a) as excessive and unreasonable. The CIT(A) held that the price actually paid for the procurement

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

disallowable under section 40A(2)(a) as excessive and unreasonable. The CIT(A) held that the price actually paid for the procurement

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

disallowable under section 40A(2)(a) as excessive and unreasonable. The CIT(A) held that the price actually paid for the procurement

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

disallowable under section 40A(2)(a) as excessive and unreasonable. The CIT(A) held that the price actually paid for the procurement

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

disallowable under section 40A(2)(a) as excessive and unreasonable. The CIT(A) held that the price actually paid for the procurement

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

disallowable under section 40A(2)(a) as excessive and unreasonable. The CIT(A) held that the price actually paid for the procurement

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

disallowable under section 40A(2)(a) as excessive and unreasonable. The CIT(A) held that the price actually paid for the procurement

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

disallowable under section 40A(2)(a) as excessive and unreasonable. The CIT(A) held that the price actually paid for the procurement