SURESH CHUNNILAL SHARMA,,PARBHANI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - PARBHANI,, PARBHANI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1883/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 40A(3). This rule opens by stating that: `No disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

Section 40A(3). (Separate annexure attached of various related parties whom payment given by the asseessee) However, no disallowance was made

SURYAKANT DNYANESHWAR KATALE,LATUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 40A(3) of the Act. The case was re-opened by means of a notice u/s.148. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 29-12-2016 determining total income of Rs.50,65,910/-. The ld. Pr. CIT observed that in the assessment made u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147, the Assessing Officer (AO) did not disallow

SRL CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,JALNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.847/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Srl Construction Pvt. Ltd., V The Acit, 197, Khasgaon, Jafrabad, S Central Circle-2, Jalna – 444203. Aurangabad. Pan: Aaqcs7227L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateekjha – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)-Nagpur, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 08.03.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. A) On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & In Law, Honorable Pr. Cit (Central), Nagpur Has Erred In Not Considering The Submission Made By The Appellant In Fair And

40A(A)(3) of the IT Act. However, the same was not done by the AO. As the AO has failed to disallow the above amount in view of the provisions of section

M/S. SHREE BUILDCON & ASSOCIATES,,NASHIK vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

3 M/s. Shree Buildcon & Associates made because of business expediency and hence, disallowance should not be made. The assessee also harped on the genuineness of the transactions so as to escape the disallowance. However, one thing has been admitted that the payments were made through bearer cheques which are otherwise hit by section 40A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL,, PANVEL vs. NITIN NARAYAN ADHIKARI,, RAIGAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

disallowed the same u/s 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Section 40A(3) of the Act refers to payments

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

ADIENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Adient India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Plot No.1, S No.235 & 245, Circle-1(1), Pune Hinjewadi, Tal-Mulshi, Pune - 411057 Pan : Aaact6342D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna Revenue By S/Shri Kalika Singh & Madhavan A.M. Krishnan Date Of Hearing 27-05-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31-05-2021 आदेश / Order Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 27-10-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called ‗The Act‘) In Relation To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against Transfer Pricing Addition Of Rs.5,95,39,429. Succinctly, The Factual Matrix Of The Case Is That The Assessee Was Earlier A 50:50 Joint

disallowance u/s 40A(2) is of no avail in determining the ALP of SDTs under the transfer pricing provisions. Once the ALP is to be determined under Chapter X, one needs to strictly adhere to the mechanism set out in the respective methods and not go arbitrarily by any non- prescribed mode or method. Vindicating the assessee‘s contention

MONIKA CHITRASEN PATIL,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, JALGAON

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is warranted. 6. I note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. ITO reported in (1991) 191 ITR 667 (SC) held that the provisions u/s. 40A(3) of the Act must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of Rule 6DD. Further, it was observed that

VIKRANT HAPPY HOMES PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 40A(3) of the Act only restricts the deductions which are otherwise allowable. He submits that the cash payments are genuine and the provisions u/s. 40A(3) is not attracted towards the genuine cash payments which were identified and acknowledged by payee. Further, the said cash payments were made keeping in view the business 3 ITA No.2856/PUN/2016

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

disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) afresh - Held, yes" The appellant in this case has not brought any material on record to prove that payments made to TACO is not excessive or unreasonable. Under these circumstances, invocation of section 40A(2)(b) is correct. 5.9 The appellant has also submitted that without prejudice to above grounds the learned

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

disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) afresh - Held, yes" The appellant in this case has not brought any material on record to prove that payments made to TACO is not excessive or unreasonable. Under these circumstances, invocation of section 40A(2)(b) is correct. 5.9 The appellant has also submitted that without prejudice to above grounds the learned

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

disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) afresh - Held, yes" The appellant in this case has not brought any material on record to prove that payments made to TACO is not excessive or unreasonable. Under these circumstances, invocation of section 40A(2)(b) is correct. 5.9 The appellant has also submitted that without prejudice to above grounds the learned

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5,SANGLI., SANGLI. vs. SHREE GANESH NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT, ASHTA,, ASHTA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2375/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent C. O. No.49/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2375/Pun/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Ganesh Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

disallowances pertaining to sections 32, 40(a )(ia), 40A(3), 43B etc., of the Act. At times disallowance out of specific

BSNL KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT ,KOLHAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1957/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2019-20

disallowance made by the assessee u/s.32, section 40(a)(ia), section 40A(3) and section 43B etc., and other specific

SHAHNAZ KHATUN SOHAIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowance of Rs. 8,77,67,036 under section 40A(3) of IT Act without appreciating the business module of the appellant

SHAHNAZ KHATUN SOHAIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowance of Rs. 8,77,67,036 under section 40A(3) of IT Act without appreciating the business module of the appellant

SHAHNAZ KHATUN SOHAIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD1(1), NASHIK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowance of Rs. 8,77,67,036 under section 40A(3) of IT Act without appreciating the business module of the appellant

M/S. DHAVALAMRUT MILK TRADERS,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 40A of the Act 3 ITA No.1024/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2011-12 deleted the amount to an extent of Rs.61,28,143/-. Further, another contention raised by the assessee that the payment to an extent of Rs.4,84,784/- made on bank holiday and the said amount is covered by exception provided in Rule 6DD(j). The CIT(A) examined