VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

disallowance of Rs. 90,000/- being GST paid by invoking the provisions of section 438 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Your

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. VAISHNAVI SATISH BANKAR, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

disallowance of Rs. 90,000/- being GST paid by invoking the provisions of section 438 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Your

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. VASCON ENGINEERS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is Dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Vs. Vascon Engineers Limited, Of Income Tax, Pune. Vascon Weikfileld Chamber, Opposite Hyatt Hotel, Nagar Road, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacv1249F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Ajit Tolani & Darpan Kriplani Revenue By Smt. Indira R. Adakil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 05.02.2025Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3/4) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 23.01.2017 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

438 ITR 1(SC)[09-09-2021] has held as under : Quote, “27. The aforesaid discussion and the cited judgments advise this Court to conclude that the proportionate disallowance of interest is not warranted, under section

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

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

438 ITR 1 (SC). As regards the disallowance under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, the same was not pressed during the course of hearing before us. 12. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 13. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

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

438 ITR 1 (SC). As regards the disallowance under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, the same was not pressed during the course of hearing before us. 12. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 13. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

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

438 ITR 1 (SC). As regards the disallowance under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules, the same was not pressed during the course of hearing before us. 12. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 13. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SWA ASHOKRAO BANKAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

438/-. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition without appreciating the fact that interest received from co-operative banks disallowed as per the provision of section

M/S LOKMANGAL MAULI INDUSTRIES LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE -1, , SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 36(1 )(va) of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f 01/04/2021 and hence not applicable to the Assessment year 2017- 18. The appellant hereby prays that the disallowance of Rs. 14,83,912/- may please be deleted. 3. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add, alter, amend or delete any ground/s of appeal.” 2. Admittedly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. INDUS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs. Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1(1), 1, Rahul Residency, Pune Plot Nos.6 & 7, Off Salunke Vihar Road, Kondhwa, Kondhwa Bk B.O., Pune – 411048 Maharashtra Pan: Aaaci5708E Appellant Respondent

disallow the deduction under Section 41(1) of the Act to establish that the liability of the respondent-assessee towards such creditors has ceased in law or so has been remitted by the creditors finally". 8.1 There is no evidence that the liability has ceased to exist and that too in the year under appeal. The very fact these amounts

DINDAYAL MAGASVARGIYA SAHAKARI SOOT GIRNI LTD,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SANGLI, CIRCLE SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.205/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dindayal Magasvargiya Vs. Acit, Circle Sangli, Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., Sangli. At Waghwadi, Post Kameri, Tal. Walwa, Sangli- 415403. Pan : Aaaad0254E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 For Ay 2014-15, Being The Year Beyond 4 Years & For Which Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Has Already Been Passed, Thereby

disallowed u/s 438 while filing of return of income as it's a loan from government and the amount was accrued but not became due". The assessee further replied as below:- "Detailed note on Interest of Rs.24200000 is as under a) Dindayal Magaswargiya Sahakari Sut Gimi is a Cooperative Spinning Unit formed for Backward Classes under Vishesh Ghatak Yojana under

KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED(PREVIOUSLY KUNOWN AS KUL URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD),PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 2(i)(iv) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act reads as follows: “2. Definitions. ………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………… ………………………… (i)’Employer’ includes- ………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………… ………………………… (iv) where the owner of any industry in the course of or for the purpose of conducting the industry contracts with any person for the execution by or under such person of the whole or any part of any work which

SUKIBA MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

438 and allowed if paid\nbefore the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of I.T. Act, 1961, but the\nemployees' contribution is governed by the Section 10( 24(x) read with\nSection 36(1)(va) of the Act and allowed only if deposited in the relevant fund\nwithin due date prescribed under relevant Act.\nThe appellant

KISHOR GORAKHNAHT BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7 (4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1295/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Kishor Gorakhnath Vs. Ito, Ward-7(4), Pune. Bhagwat, A-103, Suyog Shivalaya, Sinhagad Road, Dattawadi, Pune-411030. Pan : Afapb9960M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2022 : आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Cit(A)-8, Pune’S Order Dated 09.07.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Ito. Wd. 7(4)/407/18-19/121 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

438/- made in the course of assessment herein dated 12.12.2011 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate order, it emerges at the outset that the assessee had himself agreed to the same as per learned counsel’s endorsement to this effect dated 09.12.2011 during scrutiny (para 4 of assessment). That being the case, I see no reason

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

438) and the hon'ble tribunal held as under: The original returns of income for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06 were filed within the time allowed under section 139(1). The search under section 132 in the case of the assessee was carried out on 9-12-2005 and the assessee filed return of income in response

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

438) and the hon'ble tribunal held as under: The original returns of income for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06 were filed within the time allowed under section 139(1). The search under section 132 in the case of the assessee was carried out on 9-12-2005 and the assessee filed return of income in response

RAJDEEP BUILDCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

438) and the hon'ble tribunal held as under: The original returns of income for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06 were filed within the time allowed under section 139(1). The search under section 132 in the case of the assessee was carried out on 9-12-2005 and the assessee filed return of income in response

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) and the\ndisallowance of depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not\nin appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same.\n9.\nSo far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/-\nis concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice-& Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.Dcit, Circle-8, Vs M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., Pune. 26/27, Mumbai Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune. Pan: Aaacf 2637 D Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By : Shrij.G. Pendse, Ar Revenue By : Shrim.M. Chate, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2023 Order Perpartha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune, Dated 19.05.2022For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “1(A) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap Without Appreciating The Fact That Assesses Itself Categorized Income Earned From Sale Of Scrap As Other Income In The Profit & Loss Statement Of Roorkee Unit Undertaking & The Same Is Not Derived From The Activities Of The Eligible Business. 1(B) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A)Has Erred In Ignoring The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Liberty India Vs. Cit (2009) 317 Itr 218 (Sc) Wherein The Words "Derived From' Is Explained? 1(C) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Ic On Sale Of Scrap, Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Madras High Court In The Case Of M/S Fenner India Ltd. (241 Itr 803) Without Appreciating The Facts That The Same Has Been M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd.

disallowance to extent to which those expenses have been incurred in relation to income exempt from tax. Therefore, in view of provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D and considering the facts of the case, I am not satisfied with calculation of the assessee…..” In these facts and circumstances, we are inconformity with the submissions of the ld.DR