NITIN DWARKADAS NYATI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 14A of the Act. It is also his submission that the disallowance, if any, u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should be applicable only to such expenditure which may have any nexus with earning exempt income and not extend the disallowance to expenses having direct relation to earning taxable income. 11. We find some force in the above arguments

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.998/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Dy.Commissioner Ctr Manufacturing Of Income Tax, Circle- Vs Industries Private Limited, 1(1), Pune. Nagar Road, Vadgaon Sheri, S.O. Pune City, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacc7256R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

48,780 under section 14A of the Act 6. failed to appreciate that recording of satisfaction is a must before invoking the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Rule so as to make disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE 8 PUNE, PUNE vs. ALFA LAVAL INDIA PVT LTD, PUNE

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

48,210/- after making adjustments as per section 36(1)(va) of the Act.\nSubsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the following\nreasons:\n“1.\nDeemed International Transactions\n2.\nLarge value of international transactions\n3.\nTransactions with Company whose Registration has been Cancelled by\nMCA\n4.\nDuty Drawback\n5.\nLower amount disallowed

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. GRIHUM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

disallowed by way of an intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. He submitted that following the same analogy whether 7 CO No.39/PUN/2024 indirect items can be considered as part of the gross turnover is a highly debatable issue and therefore, the CPC has no power to make any such prima facie adjustment. The Ld. Counsel

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

48,551/- suo-moto disallowed by the\nAppellant and the stand taken by the Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP in this\nregard is misconceived and incorrect.\n9.3 The Appellant submits that the id. AO be directed to delete the\nadditional disallowance so made by him and to re-compute its total\nincome accordingly.\n10. Non-granting of deduction u/s.80JJAA

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

48,551/- suo-moto disallowed by the\nAppellant and the stand taken by the Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP in this\nregard is misconceived and incorrect.\n\n9.3 The Appellant submits that the id. AO be directed to delete the\nadditional disallowance so made by him and to re-compute its total\nincome accordingly.\n\n10. Non-granting of deduction u/s.80JJAA

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. RENU ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.353/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant V Renu Electronics Private Commissioner Of S Limited, S.No.2/6, Near Baner Income Tax, Circle-5, Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune. Pune – 411045. Pan: Aaacr8741G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.18/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant V Renu Electronics Private Commissioner Of S Limited, S.No.2/6, Near Baner Income Tax, Circle-5, Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune. Pune – 411045. Pan: Aaacr8741G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Ita No.353/Pun/2024 Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection C.O. No.18/Pun/2024 Filed By The

section 142(3) had disallowed Rs.6,48,164/- on account of depreciation and disallowed Rs.98,42,886/- which were claimed

SHREE SHIV SAHYADRI NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shree Shiv Sahyadri Nagari V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Pathanstha S Ward-7(3), Pune. Maryadit, Sai Park Road, Dighi, Pune – 411015. Pan: Aaeas1417N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak Sasar – Ar Revenue By Smt. Shabana Parveen – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/11/2024 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 28.06.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.15,60,115/- Claimed By The Appellant U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Alternatively, The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant From The Investments In A Co-Operative Bank Is Also Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant Crave Leave To Add, Delete, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw All Or Any One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

disallow the deduction claimed by assessee u/sec.80P of the Act, on account of not filing the Return of Income within the time mentioned under section 139(1) of the Act. The ld.AR read out relevant section 143(1) of the Act. Ld.AR for the assessee relied on the following case laws :  Chirakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs. Commissioner

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

disallowance under section 14A is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition made under section 14A of the Act. Ground No.10 : 18. The assessee had made additional claim of deduction under section 90 of the Act by filing a letter before the Assessing Officer which was not claimed in the Return of Income. The Assessing

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

48 of the appellate order refers). The assessee filed further submissions on 30.01.2014 stating as under : “5.1. Background : The Appellant distributed dividend of INR 1,04,81,10,000 to its shareholders during AY 2016-17. As per Section 115-O of the Act, dividend declared, distributed or paid by an Indian company is subject to tax @ 20.36 percent (grossed

TARA CONSTRUCTIONS ,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. (Addition of Rs. 70,48,370/-).” 4(b). Ld. AO also invoked the provisions of section

SHRI MARTAND DEOSANSTHAN JEJURI,PUNE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 139(1) for furnishing return of income. Thus, vide show cause notice dated 29.11.2019, the assessee was asked to explain why its accumulation of Rs.80,48,916/- u/s 11(2) should not be rejected. The reply of the assessee was not found to be acceptable by the Ld. AO and he made disallowance

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2428 & 2434/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Department. Maryadit, Arvi Junnar- 412401. Pan : Aagas3985H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2434/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

48,804/- u/s 80P of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that as per section 80AC, the deduction date i.e. u/s 139(1) of the Act. Since the return of income was not filed u/s 139(1), the Assessing Officer disallowed

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2428 & 2434/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Department. Maryadit, Arvi Junnar- 412401. Pan : Aagas3985H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2434/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

48,804/- u/s 80P of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that as per section 80AC, the deduction date i.e. u/s 139(1) of the Act. Since the return of income was not filed u/s 139(1), the Assessing Officer disallowed

AIS SHIVAJI MEMORIAL SOCIETYS EMPLOYEES COOP CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20

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” 7. He accordingly submitted that when the return was processed

JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PCIT-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1273/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Janata Grahak Madhyawarti The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, V 2020, Grahak Bhavan, Tilak S Road, Sadashiv Peth, Pune-411030. Pan: Aabaj7614D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Dr(Cit) Date Of Hearing 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/01/2024

48 year, appellant runs a departmental store and carried out activities of trading in consumer goods namely Grocery, stationery, sugar, dry-fruit, kitchenware, textiles. Appellant purchases goods from wholesale market and sells them in retail market. 2 Janata Grahak Madhyawarti Sahkari Sangh Maryadit [A] 2. Appellant has filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 on 15/10/2017 by declaring

NALINI TUKARAM NIKAM,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2747/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 4.2. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that interest of Rs. 48,08,119/ was credited in Escrow account, does not belong to me as the agreement was cancelled by us giving the notice. The bank has also given confirmation letter to the Id. AO that income

SUBHADRA TANAJI CHAVAN,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1389/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Subhadra Tanaji Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.31, Suparna Niwas S Ward-2, Satara. Pawar Colony, Shahupuri, Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Bgspc7420D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By 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.2021-22Dated 30.03.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.143(1)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 28.12.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

48,000/- made to the income of the appellant u/s 50C of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2022 is upheld.” 3.1 Thus, ld.CIT(A) has upheld 143(1) order. The ld.AR has relied on the following decisions of ITAT :  Amit Sabharwal Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax in ITA No.5292/Del/2024.  Prabha Anil Gandhi Vs. ADIT in ITA No.1647/MUM/2023