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 :

5. We have heard both the parties at length, perused the records. In this case certain admitted basic facts are as under : Date Date of filling Return of Income 30/09/2015 Date of filling revised return 26/03/2016 Date of issue of Notice u/s 143(2) 18/03/2016 Date of Amendment Omitting Specified Domestic 01/04/2017 Transaction u/s.92BA(i) Date of Reference to Transfer

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) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.66,20,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 6. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. It was explained that the reopening was made

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

sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance. (Para

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

disallowance under section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act would quality for deduction under section 80-18 of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: 7 C.O. No.49/PUN/2025 • Income-tax Officer - Ward 5(1) vs. Keval Construction, Tax Appeal No. 443 of 2012, December 10, 2012, Gujarat High Court. • Commissioner of Income

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

disallow the above amount in view of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T Act, the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. ITA No.847/PUN/2024 [A] 4.2 On verification of the Assessment order, it was noticed that there is a discrepancy in the figures of opening WDV, closing

VIJAY VYANKATRAO MANE,SADASHIV PEATH vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER , ADDL/JCIT(A)- CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", 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

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. EPYGEN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee apart from placing heavy reliance on the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) also made reference to the written submissions filed during the assessment proceedings which are placed in paper book at page Nos. 98-114 and also the documents including registration certificate issued by Department of Scientific and Industrial

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

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 Sheet and Profit

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

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 Sheet and Profit

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 :

40A (2) of the Act. The assessee i.e NLT had received services from TACL in respect of which payment had been made as per documentary evidence on record and thus, there was no warrant for disallowance paid to TACL by the assessee when the payment was adjudged on the principle of commercial expediency when viewed from the point of view

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act which in this case is admittedly the relative of the assessee. Ld. AO prior to making any disallowance has to form an opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities. Now in absence of any specific finding

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

40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

5) of Section 132 and\nrebuttable presumption for the purpose of framing a regular assessment is\nnot correct. There is nothing either in Section 132 or any other provisions\nof the Act which could warrant such an inference or finding. Presumption\nunder sub-section (4A) would not be available for the purpose of framing a\nregular assessment. There is nothing

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

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

5. Aggrieved by the first appellate ex-parte adjudication the assessee filed the present bunch of appeal on the following common grounds; ‘1.On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in making disallowance of Rs. 8,77,67,036 under section 40A

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

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

5. Aggrieved by the first appellate ex-parte adjudication the assessee filed the present bunch of appeal on the following common grounds; ‘1.On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in making disallowance of Rs. 8,77,67,036 under section 40A

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

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

5. Aggrieved by the first appellate ex-parte adjudication the assessee filed the present bunch of appeal on the following common grounds; ‘1.On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in making disallowance of Rs. 8,77,67,036 under section 40A

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

disallowance should have been made, were not examined by the Assessing Officer and the expenditure claimed thereon were also without verifying its admissibility under the relevant provisions of law. Hence, he was of the opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He, therefore, issued a show cause notice

MAHARASHTRA SWAYAMROJGAR PRASHIKSHAN MANDAL,NASHIK, MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant trust stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1512/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 40A(3) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution, without discussing anything on merits of the disallowance. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5

C R JAISWAL AND K B JAISWAL,VILLAGE KINGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(5), JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.732/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 C R Jaiswal & K B Jaiswal, The Income Tax Officer, Retail Country Liquor Shop, V Jalgaon. Village Kingaon, Taluka S Yawal – 425503 Maharashtra. Pan: Aaefc 8278 J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14/09/2023 आदेश/ 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(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 21.04.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated 29.11.2018 For A.Y.2016-17. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee As Under : C.R.Jaiswal & K.B.Jaiswal [A]

section 40A(3). It is requested that the above disallowance be deleted and cash payments be allowed by deleting the disallowance of Rs 4188200. 2] On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT [Appeals] erred in initiating penalty proceedings on cash purchases which is totally unjustified because 40A(3) disallowance can only be made