SAI SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1074 & 1075/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sai Service Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-10, Mumbai Pune Road, Vs Pune Phugewadi, Pune 411 012 Maharashtra Pan : Aabcs4998M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare– Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 04.09.2023 & 18.09.2023 Respectively For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since Some Grounds Of Appeal Are Common In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Are Discussing A.Y.2017-18 Hereonwards.

79,33,187 (-) 44,19,568/-) is confirmed as discussed above. 9.3. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 is partly allowed. Ground No.3: 10. It is regarding disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D. During the year the Assessee had received Dividend of Rs.2,86,27,085/-. The Assessee claimed the said income as exempt u/s.10 of the Act. In the computation

SAI SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1074 & 1075/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sai Service Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-10, Mumbai Pune Road, Vs Pune Phugewadi, Pune 411 012 Maharashtra Pan : Aabcs4998M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare– Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 04.09.2023 & 18.09.2023 Respectively For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since Some Grounds Of Appeal Are Common In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Are Discussing A.Y.2017-18 Hereonwards.

79,33,187 (-) 44,19,568/-) is confirmed as discussed above. 9.3. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 is partly allowed. Ground No.3: 10. It is regarding disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D. During the year the Assessee had received Dividend of Rs.2,86,27,085/-. The Assessee claimed the said income as exempt u/s.10 of the Act. In the computation

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

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

79,34,420\n1.2\nAbove mentioned amounts referred to the provisions amounts / accrued\nexpenses, hence disallowed under section 40(a)(i) and 40(a)(ia) under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. MORYA ASSOCIATES, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKAR SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. SHREE TATYASAHEB KORE WARANA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD., MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

79(A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to discourage the practice of selling sugar at concessional rates. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CIT Vs. Krishna SSK [2012] 211 Taxmann 109 (SC), along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the circular dated 01.03.2006 issued by the Sugar Commissioner

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

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Acit, Central Circle 2(3), Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati Pune Sr. No.103/129, Nyati Unitree, Vs. Yerwada, Nagar Road, Pune – 411006 Pan: Aabpn2601F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krishna V Gujarathi Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2025 O R D E R

section 14A read with Rule 8D. Similarly, the Assessing 3 Officer disallowed education cess of Rs.50,79,854/- on the basis

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

79,168/- was rightly disallowed during assessment proceedings.\n57. 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 of Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC is in accordance with law, the same should be upheld and the grounds\nraised by the Revenue on this issue

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

79,168/- was rightly disallowed during assessment proceedings.\n57.\nThe Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand while supporting the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC submitted that since the order of Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC is in accordance with law, the same should be upheld and the grounds\nraised by the Revenue on this issue

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

section 35(2AB) of the\nAct by Rs.6,75,000/-. Thus, grounds of appeal No 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 are allowed.\n47.\nIn the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed\nThe Appellant filed the additional evidence basis on which it is noted that the\nForm 3CM was issued for the R&D Centre at_K226/1_MIDC Industrial Area\nWaluj Aurangabad

BHIMASHANKAR SSK LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT- CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1147/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13 Bhimashankar Ssk Ltd., V The Acit, A/P. Pargaon, Tal.Ambegaon, S Circle-8, Pune. Dist-Pune – 412406. Pan: Aaaab0949G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hanmant Dattatry Dhavle – Ar Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 23.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law Of The Learned Nfac –Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Delhi, Has Erred In Disallowing & Adding Back An Amount Of Rs.42,23,17,760/- On Account F Excess Cane Price Paid Farmers.

disallowance of Rs.71,99,260/- which does not warrant any interference. Ground No.2 on the issue is therefore, not allowed.” 7.1 Thus, it is the contention of the Revenue that Assessee has failed to submit the specific details. 8. It is noted that ld.AR submitted that it is a customary practice to sale sugar at concessional rate to the Farmers

KUDALE AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-14, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

79,21,411/- as on 31.03.2017 and paid total interest of Rs.13,06,833/- to four Non Banking Financial Companies (“NBFCs”); namely : (i) Bajaj Finance Ltd.; (ii) IDFC First (Capital First) Ltd.; (iii) Tata Capital Finvest Ltd. and (iv) M/s Religare Finvest Ltd. which was debited to the profit and loss account of the 2 ITA No.1619/PUN/2024

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

disallows certain expenditure incurred to earn exempt income from being deducted from other income which is includible in the “total income” for the purpose of chargeability to tax.” The views expressed in Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (supra), in our considered opinion, yet again militate against the plea urged on behalf of the Assessee. 34. For the aforesaid