DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

VI A, which is considered for computing „Total Taxable Income”. If assessee is denied this benefit, merely because such payment forms part of CSR, would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. 19. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities below have erred in denying claim of assessee under section 80G

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

disallowed as CSR expenses, amount of Rs.8,10,85,470/- has again been claimed as deduction under section 80G of the Act. Since both CSR expenses and donations under section 80G of the Act are two different modes of ensuring funds for public welfare, treating the same expense under two different heads would defeat the very purpose

NYATI BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5) of the Act\n• The CSR expenditure is not allowed only for the purpose of section\n37 for computing business income. If such expenditure is otherwise\nallowable as deduction under other provisions of the Act, the same\ncannot be disturbed.\n•\nThe donations/expenditure made by the Appellant is towards\nwomen empowerment, education, environmental research etc. and\nforms part

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM.OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1158/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1330/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah & Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2023 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Respectively.

vi) Disallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB) : Rs.13,46,18,011/- 3. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the disallowance of Rs.67,87,728/- claimed as deduction u/s 80G, confirmed the disallowance on account of deduction of Rs.13,46,18,011/- claimed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. CREDIT SUISSE SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

VI A, which is considered for computing ‘Total Taxable Income”. If assessee is denied this benefit, merely because such payment forms part of CSR, would lead to double disallowance, which is not the intention of Legislature. 19. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities below have erred in denying claim of assessee under section 80G

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE vs. ADVIK HI-TECH PVT. LTD., PUNE

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

vi)\nDisallowance of deduction u/s 35(2AB)\nRs.13,46,18,011/-\n\n3. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld.\nCIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and\nconfirmed the disallowance of Rs.67,87,728/- claimed as deduction\nu/s 80G, confirmed the disallowance on account of deduction of\nRs.13,46,18,011/- claimed

SAI SERVICE AGENCY(B0MBAY) P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -8,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmashaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.490/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sai Service Agency (Bombay) The Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mumbai Pune Road, . Phugewadi, Pune – 411012. Pan: Aaccs 5991 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepa Khare – Adv. Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune- 8’S Order Dated 05.08.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Dcitc Cir-1(2)/202/18-19/188, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

disallowed the impugned claim. 8. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical arguments since the foregoing twin provisions i.e. section 80A(5) read with section 80AC apply only in case of deduction claimed under section 10A, 10AA, 10B or 10BA and the heading “C” to Chapter-VI of the Act in former and under similar provisions

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

80G of the Act since 22.08.2008. For AY 2018-19, the assessee filed its return of income on 12.11.2019 u/s 139(4) of the Act and claimed exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The audit report and Form 10B was uploaded on the portal on 07.01.2019. The return of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,PUNE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

80G of the Act since 22.08.2008. For AY 2018-19, the assessee filed its return of income on 12.11.2019 u/s 139(4) of the Act and claimed exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The audit report and Form 10B was uploaded on the portal on 07.01.2019. The return of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

80G of the Act since 22.08.2008. For AY 2018-19, the assessee filed its return of income on 12.11.2019 u/s 139(4) of the Act and claimed exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The audit report and Form 10B was uploaded on the portal on 07.01.2019. The return of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide

SHRI GANADHIPATI GANDHARACHARYA KUNTIUSAGAR VIDYA SODH SONSTHA,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, PUNE, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

80G of the Act since 22.08.2008. For AY 2018-19, the assessee filed its return of income on 12.11.2019 u/s 139(4) of the Act and claimed exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The audit report and Form 10B was uploaded on the portal on 07.01.2019. The return of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

disallowance u/s 37(1) of the Act, the pharmaceutical company i.e\nEmcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. has routed the expense of providing of\nfreebies through the assessee trust as it enables the Emcure\nPharmaceuticals Ltd. to claim an otherwise inadmissible expense as\ndeduction. Such act of the assessee trust of carrying the activity of\nproviding freebies at the behest of the pharmaceutical

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

80G of the Act.”\n2.19 Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Allahbad High Court in case of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Educational Society vs CIT(Exemptions) that,\n“Withdrawal of registration granted to assessee-society under section 12AA was justified where its activities were not genuine nor was it run as per objective set out in memorandum”\n2.20 Further

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. YANTRIK ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1283/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2020-21

vi) Total Addition – ₹16,61,07,818 4. Aggrieved respondent-assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and made submissions with respect to each of the grounds of appeal based on which ld.CIT(A) except for the disallowance u/s.37(1)(va) being covered against the respondent-assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services

DYNESHWAR S.S.K. LTD.,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

vi. Disallowance of Cane Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure. 10 SSK Group Cases 2. The Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the various assessees and Ms. Nandita Kanchan representing the Department submitted at the outset that the issues raised in present set of appeals by the assessees and the Revenue have already been considered and adjudicated by the Co-ordinate

DYNESHWAR S.S.K. LTD.,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

vi. Disallowance of Cane Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure. 10 SSK Group Cases 2. The Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the various assessees and Ms. Nandita Kanchan representing the Department submitted at the outset that the issues raised in present set of appeals by the assessees and the Revenue have already been considered and adjudicated by the Co-ordinate

MANJARI SHETKAR SSK LTD.,,LATUR vs. DY. COMM. OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

vi. Disallowance of Cane Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure. 10 SSK Group Cases 2. The Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the various assessees and Ms. Nandita Kanchan representing the Department submitted at the outset that the issues raised in present set of appeals by the assessees and the Revenue have already been considered and adjudicated by the Co-ordinate

PD. DR. VITHALRAO VIKHE PATIL SSK LTD.,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

vi. Disallowance of Cane Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure. 10 SSK Group Cases 2. The Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the various assessees and Ms. Nandita Kanchan representing the Department submitted at the outset that the issues raised in present set of appeals by the assessees and the Revenue have already been considered and adjudicated by the Co-ordinate

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. AMBAJOGAI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,, BEED

In the result, the appeals are allowed/partly allowed for statistical purpose in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl.

vi. Disallowance of Cane Harvesting and Transportation Expenditure. 10 SSK Group Cases 2. The Ld. Authorised Representatives appearing on behalf of the various assessees and Ms. Nandita Kanchan representing the Department submitted at the outset that the issues raised in present set of appeals by the assessees and the Revenue have already been considered and adjudicated by the Co-ordinate