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

disallowance under section 80IA was made by the Ld. FAO while passing the assessment order. With regard to assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IA, the order of the Ld. FAO merely states as under: “2. In this case one of the issue for selection is deduction claimed for Industrial Undertaking u/s. 801A/801AB/801AC/IB/IC/IBA/80ID/ 80IE/10A/10AA. It seen from the records

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

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

87,805/-\nand reversal of provision for doubtful debts of Rs.2,94,96,845/-.\n43.\nBefore the Assessing Officer it was submitted that the assessee had\ndisallowed Rs.1,69,81,530/- and Rs.8,76,65,984/- on account of liquidated\ndamages in assessments years 2017-18 and 2015-16 respectively. These damages\nwere disallowed under section

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.

disallowing an amount of INR 67,87,728/- claimed as deduction under section 80G of the Act, holding that the contributions

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

87,717/- it is noted that these amounts were actually disallowed in the respective assessment years commencing from AY 2014-15. In support of the claim, the assessee had submitted copy of scheduled BP of the ITR for the respective assessment years wherein it is seen that the assessee has made disallowance of provision for gratuity. Further

SALASAR WAREHOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryand Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.59/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Salasar Warehousing Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, V Ward-6(1), Pune. F-2,Warehouse, Sr.No.20/2A, S Near Mundhwa Bridge, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aamcs4834C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Kandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 27/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/11/2023

section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Salasar Warehousing Private Limited [A] “1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Act it be held that the disallowance of Rs.32,87

THE PIMPALGAON MERCHANTS CO.OP. BANK LTD.,,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

section 250 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of order u/s.143(3)\nof the Act dated 27/10/2016 passed by the ACIT, Circle-1,\nNashik for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15.\n2. The sole grievance of the assessee is against the\ndisallowance u/s.14A of the Act at ₹ 31,66,380/-.\n3. At the outset, learned

BALKRISHNA RATHI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 14A r.w Rule 8D(2)(ii) at Rs.16,63,575/-, ignoring the fact that investments yielding exempt income were made out of own funds in earlier years and no borrowed funds were utilized. 4 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that during the year under consideration the appellant company also earned the taxable interest income and therefore

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.

87,394/- respectively. However, the addition regarding disallowance of expenses on account of leasehold improvements of Rs.4,40,88,288/- was confirmed by observing as under :- “3.3 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant in light of the facts of the case. The appellant has stated that it had taken on lease the office space at “wing

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.

87,394/- respectively. However, the addition regarding disallowance of expenses on account of leasehold improvements of Rs.4,40,88,288/- was confirmed by observing as under :- “3.3 I have carefully considered the submission of the appellant in light of the facts of the case. The appellant has stated that it had taken on lease the office space at “wing

SUBHADRA TANAJI CHAVAN,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1389/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Subhadra Tanaji Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.31, Suparna Niwas S Ward-2, Satara. Pawar Colony, Shahupuri, Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Bgspc7420D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By 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.2021-22Dated 30.03.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.143(1)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 28.12.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

87,500 and pursued to the Agreement to sell the appellant has recessed its 3,51,000, upto the date of agreement to sell The appellant has further stated that the gap between actual sales consideration and the stamp duty value was due to certain reasons. 5.3 The facts of the case and the submission of the appellant are carefully

NIKHIL VIJENDRA JAIN,PUNE vs. NFAC, DELHI/ JURISDICTIONAL AO, ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

disallowed salary and wages expenses amounting to Rs.6,18,678/- being 30% of the total amount debited at Rs.20,62,261/-. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.10,60,126/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act on the ground that the assessee did not make any submission in response to the notice issued to him in respect

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

disallowed on account of\nthe expenses incurred towards CSR activity. Out of this expenditure, an\namount of INR 8,10,85,470 is the deduction claimed under section 80G of\nthe Act. Copy of the receipts are attached as Annexure 4A till 4G for your\nreference.\"\n8. Referring to paras 87

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.998/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Dy.Commissioner Ctr Manufacturing Of Income Tax, Circle- Vs Industries Private Limited, 1(1), Pune. Nagar Road, Vadgaon Sheri, S.O. Pune City, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacc7256R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

section 234C of the Act is to be deleted.” Brief facts of the case : 3. In this case, assessee had filed Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2014 for A.Y.2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.1,87,17,250/-. Subsequently, assessee has also filed revised ITA No.998/PUN/2023[R]&C.O.No.4/PUN/2024 [A] CTR Manufacturing Industries Private Limited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. PATSON AGRO EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE CITY

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

disallowance from Rs.5,87,62,191/- to Rs.18,44,764/- by observing as under: “6.2 Findings and Decision:- I have carefully considered the facts of the case as well as submissions filed by the appellant. I find force in the arguments of the Appellant. The section

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

disallowance, which is\nnot the intention of Legislature.\n\n19. On the basis of above discussion, in our view, authorities\nbelow have erred in denying claim of assessee under section\n80G of the Act. We also note that authorities below have not\nverified nature of payments qualifying exemption under section\n80G of the Act and quantum of eligibility

DCIT, PUNE vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

87,500/-, the Ld AO has made the disallowance mainly on the following ground: i) Occupancy certificate from Municipal Corporation dtd. 26/11/2012 is in the name of Vijay Narayan Jalan. 3 ITA No.2031/PUN/2025, AY 2014-15 ii) The MSEB bill submitted by the assessee dated dtd. 05/10/2019 is of current period and the assessee has not submitted any document

DCIT, NASHIK vs. KUNJ EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED, MALEGAON

In the result, matter is restored to the file of NFAC on the above lines

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.971/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Nashik Vs. Kunj Exim Private Limited, Tamba Kanta No.75, Pinjar Street, Malegaon, Nashik – 423 203 Maharashtra Pan : Aaeck6572G Appellant Respondent

87,392/- on the ground that the expenditure is not genuine for the reasons stated in the assessment order. On appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, no doubt the CIT(A)/NFAC returned finding that since the AO had not disallowed the expenditure u/s.37(1), impliedly accepted the genuineness of the expenditure. However, the CIT(A)/NFAC dealt in great

SHRIRAM GRAMIN SANSHODHAN VA VIKAS PRATISHTHAN,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.864/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Ram Gramin Sanshodhan V The Income Tax Officer, Va Vikas Pratishthan, S Ward-2(1), Solapur. A/P Wadala, Tal.North Solapur, District Solapur – 413222. Maharashtra. Pan: Aadts8337H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2025

disallowance of Rs.27,87,710 u/s.40(a)(ia) out of Interest payments and Rs.31,19,116/- u/s.40(a)(ia) out of Contract payment without considering the fact that provisions of Section

CENTRAL WATER & POWER RESEARCH STATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOC LIMITED,KHADAKWASALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), PUNE, SHANKAR-SETH ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of Rs.21,87,980/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act. 9. In this regard, we find that the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act of Interest & Dividend income earned on its investment from other cooperative banks is no more res integra in the light of various coordinate bench decisions passed by Jurisdictional