BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

543 results for “disallowance”+ Section 58clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,523Delhi3,818Bangalore1,304Chennai1,076Kolkata991Ahmedabad904Hyderabad666Jaipur591Pune543Indore386Chandigarh353Surat251Raipur241Cochin226Visakhapatnam168Cuttack144Rajkot115Lucknow114Agra107Amritsar104Karnataka86Nagpur73Allahabad63Panaji60Calcutta46Guwahati45Ranchi45Jodhpur39Telangana38SC33Varanasi22Dehradun22Patna19Jabalpur11Kerala6Punjab & Haryana6ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1Rajasthan1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1

Key Topics

Addition to Income65Section 143(3)63Deduction42Disallowance39Section 143(2)31Section 3529Section 80P27Section 14A27Section 143(1)26Section 148

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 74/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)Section 234C

section 10A and holding that the unit at TTC BPO is formed by splitting up and reconstruction of the existing BPO business of the assessee which is being carried on at NDA 58 unit and thereby netting the profits of the TTC, BPO business against the loss of the NDA 58 unit for the purpose of allowing deduction

Showing 1–20 of 543 · Page 1 of 28

...
26
Section 26325
Penalty13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. IGATE COMPUTER SYSTEM LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)Section 234C

section 10A and holding that the unit at TTC BPO is formed by splitting up and reconstruction of the existing BPO business of the assessee which is being carried on at NDA 58 unit and thereby netting the profits of the TTC, BPO business against the loss of the NDA 58 unit for the purpose of allowing deduction

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

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

ITA 1251/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Krishn V GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

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

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTAMT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed, the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the CO filed by assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 758/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.775/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.758/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Wockhardt Ltd., R&D Centre, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad. Pan: Aaacw2472M .......Cross Objector बिधम / V/S. Acit, Circle-3, Aurangabad ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Co No.43/Pun/2019

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Shivastava
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 80ISection 92B

section 234C ought to be levied on the returned income and not on assessed income. 4. The grounds of appeal No.1 to 3 challenges the decision of ld. CIT(A) disallowing weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) amounting to Rs.62,60,65,990/-. The factual background of the disallowance is as under: During the previous year relevant to the assessment under

BHARAT FORGE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 13/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.13/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Halder
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(3)

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1.1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Pune erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.21,58

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 595/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

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 14Section 14ASection 250

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

ITA 1478/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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 14Section 14ASection 250

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

ITA 590/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

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 14Section 14ASection 250

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

ITA 1781/PUN/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N. C
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

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

ITA 347/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 156Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

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

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 611/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43B

58,430/- as unpaid liability and had disallowed under section 43B of the Act. The case of assessee was that

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 610/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43B

58,430/- as unpaid liability and had disallowed under section 43B of the Act. The case of assessee was that

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 613/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43B

58,430/- as unpaid liability and had disallowed under section 43B of the Act. The case of assessee was that

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 614/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43B

58,430/- as unpaid liability and had disallowed under section 43B of the Act. The case of assessee was that

CHANDRAKANT RANGANATH GAIKWAD,,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SATARA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 612/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 To 614/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2010-11 Shri Chandrakant Ranganath Gaikwad, Morghar, Tal – Jaoli, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Satara …. Pan: Aanpg2122J Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-2, Satara अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Achal Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43B

58,430/- as unpaid liability and had disallowed under section 43B of the Act. The case of assessee was that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SAHAAN INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1586/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1586/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vinod GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chahure
Section 194ISection 194JSection 30Section 40Section 48(4)Section 58Section 9

58(1A) w.e.f. 1st April, 2008, effective from A.Y.2018-19 wherein the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) would be applied for computing the income chargeable under the head ‘Income From Other sources’. In regard to expenses incurred on Live Stock Lease Rent, the appellant contended that such disallowance

M/S. SHEWANI PROPERTIES,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 326/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.326/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Smt. Shailaja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

58,13,923/-, totaling ₹ 1,37,36,800/-. The Assessing Officer denied the claim of assessee of setting off of interest received of ₹ 40,56,925/- and re-computed 3 M/s. Shewani Properties the disallowance under section

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

ITA 1569/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Kiran SanmaneFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

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

SHRI MAHALAXMI CO-OP. BANK LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2149/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2149/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Mahalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd., 167-B, Mangalwar Peth, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur - 416012 …. Pan: Aaats3679R Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Kolhapur

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(viia)

disallowance of provision made under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act at ₹ 1,07,58,930/- and disallowance of accrued

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

ITA 1260/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Vyomesh PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(18)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(6)(a)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

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