INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

disallowed the provision on account of overdue interest of\nRs 34,94,01,100/- as there is no provision of Income Tax Act under which any\nprovision is allowed as expensed. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CIT vs.\nDeogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd in 79 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay) [2017] dated\n22-01-2015 has held as under

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

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 14A of the Act. It is also his submission that the disallowance, if any, u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should be applicable only to such expenditure which may have any nexus with earning exempt income and not extend the disallowance to expenses having direct relation to earning taxable income. 11. We find some force in the above arguments

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

7) of\nSection 43(1) and Explanation-2 of Section 43(6) of the IT Act 1961\nestablishes that the depreciation on goodwill as a result of amalgamation is\nnot allowable.\nResultantly, the claims made by the appellant in support of this ground do\nnot have any merit. Therefore, the addition made by assessing officer on\naccount of disallowance

KUMAR PROPERTIES AND REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

94 to 135 of the paper book, submitted that the assessee before the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) had submitted that the Assessing Officer has wrongly calculated the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules and the correct disallowance comes to Rs.7,95,909/-. However, the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) has not considered the calculation

FCA INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED (SURVIVING ENTITY AFTER THE MERGER OF PCA MOTORS PVT LTD),PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

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

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

7 intimation u/s 143(1) of the IT Act of Rs.42,97,560/-. However, at the time of hearing Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted before us that out of above addition an amount of Rs.32,94,172/- pertains to disallowance with regard to delayed PF payment and assessee is not pressing this ground to the extent of Rs.32,94

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

disallowed the provision on account of overdue interest of\nRs 34,94,01,100/- as there is no provision of Income Tax Act under which any\nprovision is allowed as expensed. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CIT vs.\nDeogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd in 79 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay) [2017] dated\n22-01-2015 has held as under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

disallowed the provision on account of overdue interest of\nRs 34,94,01,100/- as there is no provision of Income Tax Act under which any\nprovision is allowed as expensed. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CIT vs.\nDeogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd in 79 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay) [2017] dated\n22-01-2015 has held as under

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

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

section 40(a). Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance without\nappreciating that these were actual expenses incurred during AY 2017-18\nby the assessee and not the \"provisions for expenses” on which TDS was\nnot deducted.\n2.2\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not\nappreciating the fact that

CRYSTAL GLAZING & CLADDING,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

7 Addition on account of disallowance of 15% of 4,94,419/- Unexplained Expenses U/Sec.37(1) of the Act Total 1,74,61,831/- 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the various notices fixed for hearing were not received by the appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that he ought to have verified whether

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5,SANGLI., SANGLI. vs. SHREE GANESH NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT, ASHTA,, ASHTA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2375/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Vs. Shree Ganesh Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent C. O. No.49/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2375/Pun/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Ganesh Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Sangli. Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Ashta, Tal. Walwa, Dist. Sangli, Sangli- 416301. Pan : Aaaas8248R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

94,11,786/- and grant relief to the appellant. The appellant has raised the objection on the denial of deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act through ground nos. 1, therefore, ground nos. 1 of appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. 7.8 Ground no. 2 and 3 are on the issue on non-offering the interest income

PARAG MILK FOODS LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Parag Milk Foods Ltd., The Assistant Awasari Phata,Village Manchar, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tal - Ambegaon, Tax, Circle-4, Pune. Dist-Pune – 411503. Pan: Aabcp 0425 G Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)[Ld.Cit(A)], Pune-11 Dated 04.02.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 26.12.2018 For A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Making An Addition Of Rs.1,15,71,588/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction U/Sec.80Ia Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Has Not Complied With The Conditions Which Are Necessary To Claim Deduction U/Sec.80Ia Of The Act & Failed To Furnish Any Concrete Evidence To Prove That The Parag Milk Foods Ltd., [A]

section 80IA(7) of the Act clearly provides that no deduction shall be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant. Thus, the condition of maintaining separate accounts for the undertaking is mandatory. Though, there are some decisions as relied

ECOBOARD INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1148 To 1151/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

7 Unpaid Taxes/Dues Rs.79,23,070/- 8 Disallowance of Provisions for Bad Rs.3,42,00,280/-. and Doubtful Debts, Doubtful Advances and loss on disposal of slow moving stock Ecoboard Industries Ltd., Ld. AO also initiated proceedings u/s.270A(2) of the Act and issued show cause notices to the assessee to which there was no compliance from the side

ECOBOARD INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX, CIR 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1148 To 1151/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

7 Unpaid Taxes/Dues Rs.79,23,070/- 8 Disallowance of Provisions for Bad Rs.3,42,00,280/-. and Doubtful Debts, Doubtful Advances and loss on disposal of slow moving stock Ecoboard Industries Ltd., Ld. AO also initiated proceedings u/s.270A(2) of the Act and issued show cause notices to the assessee to which there was no compliance from the side

ECOBOARD INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1148 To 1151/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

7 Unpaid Taxes/Dues Rs.79,23,070/- 8 Disallowance of Provisions for Bad Rs.3,42,00,280/-. and Doubtful Debts, Doubtful Advances and loss on disposal of slow moving stock Ecoboard Industries Ltd., Ld. AO also initiated proceedings u/s.270A(2) of the Act and issued show cause notices to the assessee to which there was no compliance from the side

ECOBOARD INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1148 To 1151/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19

7 Unpaid Taxes/Dues Rs.79,23,070/- 8 Disallowance of Provisions for Bad Rs.3,42,00,280/-. and Doubtful Debts, Doubtful Advances and loss on disposal of slow moving stock Ecoboard Industries Ltd., Ld. AO also initiated proceedings u/s.270A(2) of the Act and issued show cause notices to the assessee to which there was no compliance from the side

ARISTON GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC AND THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1680/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ariston Group India Private The Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department, 1St Floor, Office No.103, V National Faceless Mayfai Tower, Wakdewadi, S. Assessment Centre, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. Delhi(“Nfac”), The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Pan: Aaoca7042D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 18.06.2024 For A.Y.2020- 21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ariston Group India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ariston India' Or 'The Appellant) Prefers An Appeal For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Against

disallowing the 'Payment of management service' under section 37(1) of the act disregarding the fact that the said expenses are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business of the Appellant and hence the same is allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. 7 Initiation of Penalty Proceedings: 7.1 The Ld. AD pursuant to the direction

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1255/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner L B Kunjir, Of Income Tax, V S.No.52/1 Swanand Circle-7, Pune. S Building, Shree Ram Hsg Society, Kharadi, Chandanagar, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabfl9816E Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri R.Y.Balawade – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 12/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order

disallow deduction under section 80IA(4) when facts are similar. Findings &Analysis : 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ground No.1 & 2 of the Revenue are related to deduction under section 80IA(4) computed in such a way that each wind mill was treated as a separate undertaking. It is a fact that ITAT by consolidated

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

disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) and the\ndisallowance of depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not\nin appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same.\n9.\nSo far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/-\nis concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part

MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : 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 Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

disallowance is merely due to difference of opinion between the Appellant and the learned transfer pricing officer ('Ld. TPO’) Hon. CIT(A) with regard to the arm's length price and thus it does not lead to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case