E-ALLY SECURITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,RAIGAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE, PANVEL, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act to a sum of Rs.1,13,72,545/-. 10. The Appeal is allowed

SHANKAR KASHINATH KADAM,,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Shankar Kashinath Kadam, Hingagaon Road, Kavthemahankal, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Sangli - 416405 …. Pan: Aumpk8234G Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 2(3), Sangli

disallowance of Rs.2,29,56,838/- under S. 40(a)(ia) being transport charges paid u/s 194C(7) of the Act on mere change of opinion. The addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is invalid and without jurisdiction. It be quashed.” 3. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had filed return

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

72 (SC). (viii) As regards, the disallowance of donation of Rs.5,50,000/- u/s 37(1), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of donation of Rs.5,50,000/- made to Sakal Social Foundation. (ix) With regard to claim for allowance of depreciation on windmill of Rs.56,11,914/-, the ld. CIT(A) held that civil construction and electrical work

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed the same by holding as under- "It would be pertinent to mention here that the above assessed loss of Rs.73,24,3051- is inclusive of Depreciation loss of Rs. 12,69,0741-. Further, under the circumstances that the return of income was not filed within the stipulated time limit as detailed in section 139(1) of the Act, only

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

72 of the Act...” 17. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the Board has itself accepted the position that where an eligible business, the profits wherefrom would have been exempted under section 10A, incurs a loss, such a loss is eligible to be carried forward and set off. It is submitted that it is a settled position in law that

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of claim u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 of Rs.7,72

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

COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

72,21,614 adjustments for allowable / disallowable items & other deductions claimed, as per the computation of income submitted. Add:- 1. Disallowance of Deduction, as discussed in para 5.1 23,51,99,825 2. Disallowance as discussed in para 5.3 3,19,706 3. Disallowance as discussed in para 5.4 14,19,455 4. Disallowance as discussed in para

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD.,JALGAON vs. DY. CIT, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

disallowed the expenses of Rs.4,94,72,088/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the action of AO. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 5. Before us, at the outset, Ld.A.R. submitted that on identical facts in assessee’s own case

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:

72,920/- under section 234D of the Act. 5 b. The learned ACIT erred in not appreciating that as no refund had been received by the appellant for the aforesaid assessment year, no interest could be charged under section 234D of the Act. 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. a. The learned ACIT

RAMESH G PORWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

72,172/- by the appellant for acquiring shares of Punjab National Bank & Bharatiship Yard be calculated for the purpose of disallowance under section

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

72,275/-. Applying the provisions of section 10AA(9) r.w.s.80IA(10), he held that the amount of deduction u/s.10AA was to be reduced to this extent. The ld. CIT(A) overturned the assessment order by relying on the orders passed for earlier years. 58. The provisions of section 10AA(9) r.w.s.80IA(10) can obviously be applied

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

72,275/-. Applying the provisions of section 10AA(9) r.w.s.80IA(10), he held that the amount of deduction u/s.10AA was to be reduced to this extent. The ld. CIT(A) overturned the assessment order by relying on the orders passed for earlier years. 58. The provisions of section 10AA(9) r.w.s.80IA(10) can obviously be applied

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

SURYAKANT DNYANESHWAR KATALE,LATUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

72,500/- u/s.40A(3) of the Act but settled the disallowance only at Rs.11.00 lakh. That is how, he opined that remaining cash payments also ought to have been disallowed. He, therefore, invoked section

VIJAY ARVIND RAYKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2),, PUNE

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.3010/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vijay Arvind Raykar, The Income Tax Officer, Ward- S.No.33, Wadgaon(Bk), Vs 6(2), Pune. Singhagad Road, Haveli, Pune – 411041. Pan: Adqpr 1950 F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Abhay A.Avchat– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2022 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(Appeals)-4, Pune Dated 29.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune, Has Erred In Disallowing An Amount To The Extent Of Rs. 94,526/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D & The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Pune Has Erred In Confirming The Same. 2. There Is Error In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.27,30,900/- Under Section 43Ca Of The Act & Appropriate Relief Should Be Granted To The Assessee In Respect Thereof. 3. The Assessee Requests For Grant Of Appropriate Relief From Additions Made Under Section 14A & 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Order Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune, Under Section 143(3) Dated September 29, 2017 Is Bad In Law & Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer (Appeals)-V, Pune Has Erred In Confirming The Same. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

disallowance made under section 14A is hereby directed to be deleted, accordingly, the Ground No.1 raised by the assessee are allowed. 4. Ground No.2 relates to addition under section 43CA of the Act. The assessee is a builder. He is in the business of construction and sale of residential/commercial properties. The AO observed that certain residential units have been sold

M/S. SHARADA PAPER COMPANY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1547/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S.Sharada Paper Company, The Income Tax Officer, 436/8, Narayan Peth, Vs Ward-11(4), Pune. Maharashtra – 411030. Pan: Aaffs 1470 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Dated 18.07.2019 Arising Out Of Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.03.2013. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Withdrawal Of Claim For The Carry Forward Of Loss For A.Y. 2003-04, A.Y. 2004-05, A.Y.2005-06 & A.Y.2006- 07 Without Verifying The Facts. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Rectification Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 154 & Thereby Withdrawing Loss Allowed In The Assessment Made Under Section 143(3) Of Income Taxact,1961 Without Appreciating The Fact That This Is Not Mistake Apparent From Records & Hence Cannot Be Rectified Under 154 Of The Act.

disallowed the carry forward losses for the AY 2003-04 to 2005-06. Accordingly Ground No.1 to 5 are DISMISSED” Unquote. 3.1. In this case, the assessee had claimed that return of income for A.Y. 2003-04, 2004-05 were filed within time, as per section 139(1) of the Act. We have gone through the copies of the return

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