DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. VASCON ENGINEERS LIMITED,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance of Rs.1,94,85,303/- in his assessment order dated 01.12.2017, it emerges at the outset that the former’s lower appellate discussion to this effect reads as follows. “5.1 I have considered the materials placed before me. During the appellate proceeding the appellant submitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional ITAT, Pune in appellant

MULAY CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mulay Construction Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Ist Floor, Tapadiya Teraces, Central Circle-1, Adalat Road, Aurangabad – 431 001 Aurangabad Pan : Aadcm1853B Appellant Respondent

section 14A of the Act. No proposition for not making disallowance at 0.5% of the average value of investments, which is otherwise in accordance with rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules, has been laid 4 down in the case. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this score. 5. The only other ground raised in this appeal is against

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

disallowance of deduction claimed under\nsections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID\nor section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond\nthe due date specified under sub-section (1) of\nsection 139\"\n6. Given that there is no specific requirement in section 10AA\nto file the return of income within the due date

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

disallowance of deduction claimed under\nsections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID\nor section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond\nthe due date specified under sub-section (1) of\nsection 139\"\n\n6. Given that there is no specific requirement in section 10AA\nto file the return of income within the due date

BYK ASIA PACIFIC PTE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT(IT), CIRCLE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2110/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

disallowance of Rs.1,22,43,873/- u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source on the following payments made by the Indian BO to the Singapore HO: i. Seminar expenses – Rs.83,85,562.72 ii. IT expenses – Rs.36,44,507.64 iii. Training expenses – Rs.1,45,779.75 iv. Printing expenses – Rs.46,682.32 4 BYK Asia Pacific

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

747/-. The deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was claimed in respect\nof housing project namely ‘Teerth Towers' which consisted of 7 buildings and\ncommercial shops. The assessee had been following project completion method by\nrecognizing the income, as a result of which all the expenses incurred on the\nproject till the immediately preceding financial year were shown

RENU ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Renu Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Pune. S.No.2/6, Near Baner Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune- 411045. Pan : Aaacr8741G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Weighted Deduction Amounting To Rs.9,25,79,494/- U/S 35(2Ab) Of The Act. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Company Was Not Entitled To Claim Weighted Deduction U/S 35(2Ab) Since Form No. 3Cla Was Filed By The Assessee Beyond The Due Date Specified U/S 139(1) Of The Act.

747/- = Rs.52,31,494/- Therefore, an amount of Rs.52,31,494/- is being added back to the total income of the assessee company for the A.Y. 2017-18.” 5. It was further found by the Assessing Officer that the Form 3CLA for the claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) by the assessee company was filed on 23.02.2018. Although, the assessee

MARATHA SEVA SANGH SANCHLIT DHULE DIST NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,DHULE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, ITD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2183/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Maratha Seva Sangh Sanchlit V Assessment Unit, Dhule Dist Nagari Sahakari S Itd. Patsanstha Ltd., Plot No.148, Chudamani, Jay Hind Colony, Deopur Dhule, Dhule – 424002. Pan: Aactm4087D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad A Shah Revenue By Shri Pawan Bharti (Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 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(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 23.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, Dated 21.02.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

747/-. GROUND NO.5: In the facts, circumstances and position of law learned CIT (A), NFAC, erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of interest on fixed deposits kept with State Bank of India which is at Rs.7,426/-. GROUND NO.6: Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or substitute to the above grounds

SANKET FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1956/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sanket Food Products Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3), Jalna Flat No.101, Bhoomi Apartment, 1St Floor, Nutan Laxmi Chs, Plot No.9, Jvpd Scheme, Ville Parle (W), N.S. Road, No.8, Mumbai – 400056 Pan: Aaecs0131P Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing 08-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11-02-2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am : This Appeal Is Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 24.03.2017 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The History Of Notices By Itat Issued For Hearing In This Case Is As Under: Date Of Hearing Present / Absent 03.07.2020 Ld. Ar Present & Sought Adjournment 04.08.2020 Ld. Ar Present & Sought Adjournment 09.09.2020 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 09.10.2020 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 10.11.2020 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 08.01.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 30.04.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 16.09.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 08.11.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 15.12.2021 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 08.02.2022 None Present On Behalf Of Appellant 3. Even On 08.02.2022, No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. From The History Of Hearings Mentioned Above, It Can Be Seen That Sufficient Opportunity Has Already

Disallowance of Interest on Excise Duty of Rs.29,89,381/- 15. The CIT(A) has allowed interest of Rs.1,29,45,747/- on Excise duty. However, interest of Rs.29,89,381/- was not allowed as the same was shown by the appellant as payable as on 31.03.2012 due to changes in Union Budget. Therefore, the CIT(A) concluded that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

747/- and Rs.4,59,13,562/- is not allowable to the\nassessee for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) and the then Assessing officer was\ncorrect in disallowing the excess claim.\n49.\nThe Ld. Counsel for the assessee while supporting the order of the Ld.\nCIT(A) / NFAC submitted that since the order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is in\naccordance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

747/- and Rs.4,59,13,562/- is not allowable to the\nassessee for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) and the then Assessing officer was\ncorrect in disallowing the excess claim.\n49.\nThe Ld. Counsel for the assessee while supporting the order of the Ld.\nCIT(A) / NFAC submitted that since the order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is in\naccordance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

747/- and Rs.4,59,13,562/- is not allowable to the\nassessee for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) and the then Assessing officer was\ncorrect in disallowing the excess claim.\n49. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand while supporting the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC submitted that since the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

747/- and Rs.4,59,13,562/- is not allowable to the\nassessee for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) and the then Assessing officer was\ncorrect in disallowing the excess claim.\n49.\nThe Ld. Counsel for the assessee while supporting the order of the Ld.\nCIT(A) / NFAC submitted that since the order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is in\naccordance

L/H OF LATE SHRI TAJUDDIN M. SOMJEE, MRS. SHAHNAZ ALI MOHAMMAD SOMJEE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

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

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

section 54EC of the Act. Against that order, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A), who had confirmed the action of AO and even on further appeal before the Tribunal, the orders of the lower authorities was confirmed. 3. While the matter stood thus, a notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 16.03.2012 was issued

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

747/-. The deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was claimed in respect of housing project namely ‘Teerth Towers’ which consisted of 7 buildings and commercial shops. The assessee had been following project completion method by recognizing the income, as a result of which all the expenses incurred on the project till the immediately preceding financial year were shown

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

747/-. The deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was claimed in respect of housing project namely ‘Teerth Towers’ which consisted of 7 buildings and commercial shops. The assessee had been following project completion method by recognizing the income, as a result of which all the expenses incurred on the project till the immediately preceding financial year were shown

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

747/-. The deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was claimed in respect of housing project namely ‘Teerth Towers’ which consisted of 7 buildings and commercial shops. The assessee had been following project completion method by recognizing the income, as a result of which all the expenses incurred on the project till the immediately preceding financial year were shown