KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

7) of the Act. The Appellant has submitted that it has duly filed Form 10CCB, for eligible undertaking, within the time period as prescribed in the Act and hence denial of claim owing to the same is a mistake apparent from record. Further, the Appellant submitted that the CPC has exceeded its authority in disallowing the claim under section

DESAI INFRA PROJECTS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. CIT(A), PUNE-11, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

801A(7), the appellant was not eligible for deduction u/s.801A(4) of the Act. Since Form 10CCB was not filed within time, therefore this situation is covered by Explanation (a)(ii) to section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC falls within the provisions of section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

7) of section 80-IA. (Para 14] Thus, the Kalamb unit, being the only unit of the assessee eligible for deduction under section 80-IA, was to be treated as an independent unit and the same was to be treated as the only source of income for the assessee for the purpose of computing deduction under section

VIJAY DEVICHAND NIBJIYA,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE (5), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.634/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vijay Devichand Nibjiya, V The Dcit, Office No.304/305/306, S. Circle-(5)/A.O. D Wing, 3Rd Floor, Business Centralised Processing Court, Mukundnagar, Pune – Centre. 411037. Maharashtra. Pan: Aanpn8491R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Add./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-6, Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 13.02.2025. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 801A(7). 3] The learned CIT(A) was not justified in relying upon the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kumar Batra by ignoring various decisions in favour of the assessee referred to on page 6 and 7 of his order. 4] The learned CIT(A) was not justified in making this disallowance

SHAH CONSTRUCTIO,SATARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.617/Pun/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shah Construction, Vs Acit, Satara Parag, 286 2, Circle, Satara Budhwar Peth, Tal Karad, Dist Satara- 415110 Maharashtra Pan-Aaffs0461E Appellant Respondent

disallow the claim of deduction made under section 801A and there remains pending against the appellant if the same is accepted it be held accordingly. Addition of Rs. 67,25,256/- be deleted. 5. The leamed CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case and the valid documents submitted during the course of assessment proceedings

ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

7. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of confirming the addition of Rs.4,40,88,288/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenses

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

7. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of confirming the addition of Rs.4,40,88,288/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of expenses

SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL PARIK,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

801A of the Act, when processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act.” 5. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Faridabad is 4 unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

7. In brief, as per the assessing officer, there is no mandate u/s. 80IA to treat each wind mill project as 'separate undertaking' of the Assessee and that the Section envisages only two classifications of business i.e. 'eligible business' and 'non-eligible business'. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the request of the Assessee to treat each Wind Mill project

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

7. In brief, as per the assessing officer, there is no mandate u/s. 80IA to treat each wind mill project as 'separate undertaking' of the Assessee and that the Section envisages only two classifications of business i.e. 'eligible business' and 'non-eligible business'. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the request of the Assessee to treat each Wind Mill project

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

7. In brief, as per the assessing officer, there is no mandate u/s. 80IA to treat each wind mill project as 'separate undertaking' of the Assessee and that the Section envisages only two classifications of business i.e. 'eligible business' and 'non-eligible business'. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the request of the Assessee to treat each Wind Mill project

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

7. In brief, as per the assessing officer, there is no mandate u/s. 80IA to treat each wind mill project as 'separate undertaking' of the Assessee and that the Section envisages only two classifications of business i.e. 'eligible business' and 'non-eligible business'. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the request of the Assessee to treat each Wind Mill project

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

7. In brief, as per the assessing officer, there is no mandate u/s. 80IA to treat each wind mill project as 'separate undertaking' of the Assessee and that the Section envisages only two classifications of business i.e. 'eligible business' and 'non-eligible business'. The Assessing Officer therefore, held that the request of the Assessee to treat each Wind Mill project

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

disallowance\nwas made in assessment year 2007-08 as industrial park was not complete\nas on 31.03.2007 as the completion certificate was obtained by the assessee\nfrom local authority on 09.05.2007 and also the industrial park did not\nfulfill the criteria of locating minimum number of 30 industrial units. The\nTribunal while deciding the appeal of assessee vide para

T AND T INFRA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 T & T Infra Limited Acit, Circle – 7, Pune A-1, Vishnu Vihar, Bibwewadi Vs. Kondhwa Road, Market Yard, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aaect3902H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Ghia Department By : S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 10-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-10-2024 O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, Jm :

801A(4)(b)(i) of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) while confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA(4) made by the AO has erred in holding that appellant company failed to prove that it had fulfilled the conditions as laid down in section 80IA(4) of the Act without giving any valid and logical reason as well

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTION LTD,, AURANGABAD

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

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

7. Ground no.4 relates to the addition of Rs.2,73,36,424/- made on account of disallowance of assessee’s claim of a deduction of Rs.2,73,36,424/- made under section 801A

M/S. M.B.PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

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

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

7. Ground no.4 relates to the addition of Rs.2,73,36,424/- made on account of disallowance of assessee’s claim of a deduction of Rs.2,73,36,424/- made under section 801A

DCIT CIRCLE-1, NASHIK vs. JYOTI PAPER UDYOG LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

801A, 801B etc. Thus, it is observed that the payments made by the appellant to the four related parties u/s 40A(2), exceeding Rs.5 crore fell within the scope of Specified Domestic Transactions (SDT\") as defined under clause (i) of section 92BA as existing on the Statute Books during/for the relevant period. The transactions entered with the related parties

LATE MR JAGADISH DESHPANDE THROUGH LEGAL HEIR VRISHALI DESHPANDE,PUNE vs. DY/ASSIT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripote

801A of Rs 46,46,516 on account of the said delay may kindly be deleted. 2) Without prejudice to Ground no 01, on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the Act, assuming without admitting that the disallowance of deduction of Rs 46,46,516 u/s 80IA of the Act is required