ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNE vs. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.590, 595 & 1478/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant V Persistent Systems Limited, Commissioner Of Income S 402, Bhageerath, Senapati Tax,Pune. Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp1209Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri R.D.Onkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.01.2024 & 06.05.2024, For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2014-15; Respectively. The Revenue For A.Y.2016- 17Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether In. The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law

Section 14A, the appellant has mainly raised objection stating that the investments in Growth Scheme cannot be considered while applying formula prescribed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to calculate disallowance 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D(2)(iii). It has further argued that the exempt income arises purely from investment of surplus funds representing post tax accumulated profits

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.590, 595 & 1478/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant V Persistent Systems Limited, Commissioner Of Income S 402, Bhageerath, Senapati Tax,Pune. Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp1209Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri R.D.Onkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.01.2024 & 06.05.2024, For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2014-15; Respectively. The Revenue For A.Y.2016- 17Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether In. The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law

Section 14A, the appellant has mainly raised objection stating that the investments in Growth Scheme cannot be considered while applying formula prescribed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to calculate disallowance 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D(2)(iii). It has further argued that the exempt income arises purely from investment of surplus funds representing post tax accumulated profits

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.590, 595 & 1478/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Assistant V Persistent Systems Limited, Commissioner Of Income S 402, Bhageerath, Senapati Tax,Pune. Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp1209Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri R.D.Onkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 31.01.2024 & 06.05.2024, For The A.Y.2015-16, 2016-17 & 2014-15; Respectively. The Revenue For A.Y.2016- 17Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether In. The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law

Section 14A, the appellant has mainly raised objection stating that the investments in Growth Scheme cannot be considered while applying formula prescribed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to calculate disallowance 14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D(2)(iii). It has further argued that the exempt income arises purely from investment of surplus funds representing post tax accumulated profits

FCA INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED (SURVIVING ENTITY AFTER THE MERGER OF PCA MOTORS PVT LTD),PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B was passed by the AO on 26 4 September 2022. In the assessment order, the AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.23,96,58,331/- and raised a tax demand of Rs.44,65,790/- on the assessee after disallowance

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

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

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

disallowances made by the Ld. AO u/s 14A and section 35(2AB) of the Act. Additionally, the assessee claimed that while computing the assessed income the Ld. AO did not give MAT credit of Rs.1,58

KIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC COMPANY LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1569/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

58,000/- for earning the exempt income and the same has been disallowed in the computation of income u/s.14A of the Act. Ld. AO however has applied Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and calculated the disallowance @1% of the annual average of monthly average of investments. 8. The main contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee

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

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

section 40(a)(ia). He\nfurther submitted that from the books of account of the asssessee it was established\nthat these were actual expenses incurred during AY 2017-18 and not the\n\"provisions for expenses” on which TDS was not deducted. He submitted that the\nassessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence that TDS was deducted during\nthe assessment

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

58,184/-. The penalty under sub-section (7) of section 270A of the Act was levied for disallowance of employees

MS RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,JALGAON vs. DCIT, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S Rajmal Lakhichand Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon – 425001 Pan: Aacfr8609L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2025 O R D E R

disallowed interest of Rs.2,95,58,034/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has diverted the interest bearing funds to M/s. Ashoka Builders and Developers and Ashoka Engineering Co. without charging any interest. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission

BALKRISHNA RATHI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

58,22,815) 7 Disallowance u/s.14A {Clause (i) + (ii) + (iii) } Rs.17,92,689/- In view of the above, disallowance u/s 14A RWR 8D of the Act, is being made at Rs.17,92,689/- and added to the total income.” 5 ITA No.2328/PUN/2025 [A] 5. On perusal of the para 6 of the assessment order, it is observed that Assessee

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

disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A of the Act. These decisions, therefore, limited their observations to the applicability of Section 14A of the Act on dividend income. Also, the G&B HC decision and the G&B SC decision have not laid down any principle contrary to those laid down by the Hon'ble SC in Tata Tea decision

M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act. These 4 decisions, therefore, limited their observations to the applicability of section 14A of the Act on dividend income. Also, the G&B HC decision and the G&B SC decision have not laid down any principle contrary to those laid down by the Hon'ble SC in Tata Tea decision

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

58,00,000/- and sought various party-wise details. The same was provided on time to time basis in the course of assessment proceedings. However, the ld. A.O drew certain alleged inferences from the documentation provided and imputed a further adhoc disallowance of Rs. 5 crores. The ld. A.O has discussed this issue at para

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, PUNE

58,00,000/- and sought various party-wise details. The same was provided on time to time basis in the course of assessment proceedings. However, the ld. A.O drew certain alleged inferences from the documentation provided and imputed a further adhoc disallowance of Rs. 5 crores. The ld. A.O has discussed this issue at 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

disallowing Rs.58,631/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. The appellant has received the employees contribution of Rs.58,631/- for payment of provident fund and the same should be credited to the employees account on or before the due date whereas the appellant has not paid the employees contribution on or before the due date. As per section

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made for the reason that the reimbursement on account of A&M expenses, management cost and selling discount given to HUL does not result any income in the hands of the payee i.e. HUL and, therefore, the question of deduction of tax at source does not arise. It was further

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

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

section (5) for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order. The DRP has no power to quash, annul or declare a draft assessment order as void ab initio. The Panel however directs the AO to take the submission regarding the jurisdiction of the case with the AO or existence of the entity in respect of which the Draft Assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

58 Taxmann.com 254" however, the facts of the case are not identical. Hence, the same should be treated as international transaction and should be; added to the total income of the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C1T(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting