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, 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). Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance without\nappreciating that these were actual expenses incurred during AY 2017-18\nby the assessee and not the \"provisions for expenses” on which TDS was\nnot deducted.\n2.2\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating the fact that

BIRLASOFT LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Birlasoft Limited Dcit, Circle – 8, Pune 35 & 36, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Vs. Park, Phase-1, Midc, Hinjawadi, Pune – 411057 Pan: Aaack7308N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2023 Of The Ld. Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assesse Is A Public Limited Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Computer & Software Services. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.95,13,15,400/-. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc & An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 25.01.2021 Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,00,23,03,750/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Assessment Under The E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 On The Following Issues:

72,231/- u/s 10AA of the Act. 22. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer, on the basis of submissions made by the assessee, disallowed a part of the deduction claimed u/s 11 10AA of the Act on the ground that Forex proceeds were not received into India within the prescribed time period. The said disallowance

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

PRADEEP KISANLAL BOOB,NASHIK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.189/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

disallowing set off of brought forward business loss against Income assessed under head 'Short Term Capital Gains' arising on sale of depreciable business assets without appreciating that the impugned issue was certainly a debatable one and hence, the adjustment made on the above debatable issue was outside the scope of permissible adjustments

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

72 taxmann.com 16, have held that, the deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits enhanced by way of the disallowance. Per contra, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs Harshwardhan Chemicals’ reported in 131 Taxman 813 categorically denied chapter VI-A deduction on enhanced business income ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 7 Solapur

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

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

disallowance of capital expenditure related to scientific research amounting to Rs.3,72,88,916 under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act, the appellant

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 10(15) 21,72,77,052 4. He observed that the assessee in its computation has made suo motu disallowance

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 10(15) 21,72,77,052 4. He observed that the assessee in its computation has made suo motu disallowance

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

72,290/-\nli\nAdd: TP Adjustment\n12,70,86,646/-\nii\nAdd: Disallowances u/s.14A r.w.s.8D\n47,55,629/-\niii\nAdd: Denial of claim of deduction u/s.\n35(2AB)\n13,10,97,715/-\niv\nAdd: Denial of claim of deduction on\naccount of Education Cess Paid\n5,28,66,834/-\n2\nTotal Assessed Income\n31,58,06,824/-\n756

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

72,290/-\nli\nAdd: TP Adjustment\n12,70,86,646/-\nii\nAdd: Disallowances u/s.14A r.w.s.8D\n47,55,629/-\n\nill\n\nAdd: Denial of claim of deduction u/s.\n35(2AB)\n13,10,97,715/-\n\niv\nAdd: Denial of claim of deduction on\naccount of Education Cess Paid\n5,28,66,834/-\n\n2\nTotal Assessed Income

DCIT EXMP CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE PMT BLDG vs. ASHIRWAD CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.224 & 225/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit (Exemptions) Circle, Vs. Ashirwad Charitable Pune. Trust, 402, Pascal Martin Road, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan : Aabta4479Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Raja B. Singh & Mohd. Obaid Ansari Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15 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 In Ita No.224/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

disallowing the deduction of income accumulated/set apart under section 11(2) of the Act is found to be untenable and the Ld. AO is directed to delete the same accordingly. Further, the Ld. AO has made addition by adding Rs.4,93,72

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXMP CIRCLE PUNE, SWARGATE PMT BLDG vs. ASHRIWAD CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.224 & 225/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit (Exemptions) Circle, Vs. Ashirwad Charitable Pune. Trust, 402, Pascal Martin Road, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan : Aabta4479Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Raja B. Singh & Mohd. Obaid Ansari Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15 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 In Ita No.224/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

disallowing the deduction of income accumulated/set apart under section 11(2) of the Act is found to be untenable and the Ld. AO is directed to delete the same accordingly. Further, the Ld. AO has made addition by adding Rs.4,93,72

SAHYADRI KARAD HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 72(3) of the Act from the total losses allowed till AY 2018-19)) given the fact that the current year loss of Rs.55829267/- for the AY 2019-20 has already been allowed by the CPC. Hence, the brought forward losses of the previous years to the tune of Rs.316465973/- is admissible to the appellant. However

SAHYADRI KARAD HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 72(3) of the Act from the total losses allowed till AY 2018-19)) given the fact that the current year loss of Rs.55829267/- for the AY 2019-20 has already been allowed by the CPC. Hence, the brought forward losses of the previous years to the tune of Rs.316465973/- is admissible to the appellant. However

NELSON GLOBAL PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE, MAHARAHSTRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

section 37 of the Act: Erred on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law by confirming the disallowance for the warranty expenses amounting to Rs.12,32,732 without appreciating the fact that these are actual settlement of warranty expenses with the customers of the Appellant. Erred on the facts in circumstances of the case