SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance of claim under section 10AA of the Act amounting to Rs. 17,09,96,537, without assigning any reason

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)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B was passed by the AO on 26 4 September 2022. In the assessment order, the AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.23,96,58,331/- and raised a tax demand of Rs.44,65,790/- on the assessee after disallowance

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

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

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

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing health and education Cess. He, therefore, submitted that there is no basis for holding that the assessee has under-reported its income or done any act without good faith and due diligence and hence the provisions of section 270A of the Act do not apply 5 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 to the case of the assessee

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.564/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, The Principal 3Rd Floor, Panchsil Tech Park, V Commissioner Of Income Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014. S Tax-3, Pune. Pan: Aadcb6018P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala & Ms.Vasanti B.Patel – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed By Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 On 14.03.2023. In This Case, Assessment Order Was Passed On 26.02.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. Ground I: Challenging The Validity Of Revision Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act 1.1. The Learned Pcit Failed To Appreciate That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As Learned Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Bajaj Housing Finance Limited [A]

96,000/- as provision for standard assets in its books, out of which Rs.1,85,34,347/- was claimed as deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the I.T. Act. The said deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed 3 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited [A] by the AO while completing the assessment. Ld.Pr.CIT observed that Section 36(1)(viia) of the Income

GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS EMPLOYEE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.793/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Government Printing Press V The Income Tax Officer, Employee Credit Co-Operative S Ward-7(1), Pune. Society Limited, Yerawadakaragruh, Airport Road, Yerawada, Pune – 411006. Pan: Aabag2986P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr.Sarvesh Khandelwal Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-2, Visakhapatnamunder Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 02.12.2020 For Ay 2019-20.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of Rs.1,30,92,363/-, 80P(2)(c) of Rs.28,171/- and u/s 80P(2)(d) of Rs.13,08,573/- while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not covered by scope of the said section. It is held that intimation order is not passed

SANCHIT KANTILAL GANORE,BHAGUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, V The Income Tax Officer, 21, Main Road, Bhagur, S. Ward-1(1), Nashik. Nashik - 422502. Pan: Aprpg4907J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & Without Prejudice To Other Grounds, Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Passing A

disallowance of deduction of Rs 96,408/- claimed under section 80C by Ld. NaFAC without appreciating the valid submission filed

INDUS BIOTECH LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

96,940\n3. Before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) the assessee inter-alia submitted that the\nexpenditure of Rs.1,17,25,562/- relates to the IPO expenses in respect of\nabandoned / aborted project which is revenue in nature. It was submitted that there\nwas no enduring benefit as a result of such aborted expenditure. The decision of\nthe

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

96 Taxmann.com 356 (Kerala)] DIT (Exemption) v. St. Ann’s Education Society [(2020) 425 ITR 642 (Karnataka)] CIT (Exemptions) v. Gettwell Health and Education Samiti [(2021) 133 Taxmann.com 114 (SC)] Bhagwad Swarup Shri ShriDevraha Baba Memorial Shri Hari Parmarth Dham Trust v. CIT [(2008) 111 ITD 175 (Delhi)] Sai Shyam Educational Society v. ITO I.T.ANo. 567/(Asr)/2014 IV. Proposition

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

Disallowance of Rs.1,50,000/- under section 80C of the Income Tax Act. The relevant paragraph 57 of the ld.CIT(A)’s Order is reproduced here as under : 18 ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] ―57. As regards to the claim of deduction on account of payment of principal amount of loan, I have considered the facts of the case

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. VAISHNAVI SATISH BANKAR, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

Disallowance of Rs.1,50,000/- under section 80C of the Income Tax Act. The relevant paragraph 57 of the ld.CIT(A)’s Order is reproduced here as under : 18 ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] ―57. As regards to the claim of deduction on account of payment of principal amount of loan, I have considered the facts of the case

SPAN OVERSEAS P LTD,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.409/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Span Overseas Private Limited, The Principal Office No.5, Amar Avinash Vs Commissioner Of Income Corporate City 11, Bund Garden Tax-3, Pune. Road, Pune – 411006. Pan: Aabcs 4214 N Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 Dated 30.03.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 13.11.2019 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Span Overseas Private Limited ('The Appellant') Objects To The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Dated March 30, 2022 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Pune - 3 ('Pr. Cit) For The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Amongst Other Grounds: Span Overseas P. Ltd.,[A]

disallowed the unpaid sales tax liability for 1994-95, 1995- 96 & 1996-97, in those years under section 43B of the Act. As per section

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

section 139 in respect of the previous year in which liability to pay such sum was incurred. Further, in the instant case, the payment was not made by the assessee company but by its partnership firm. The FAO has not verified as to how the accounting of the same has been entered into the books of accounts of the assessee

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

disallowed and is added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A(1) of the Act are initiated separately for under reporting of income.” 28. In appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act made by the assessee by observing as under: “23. In brief, as per the assessing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

96,19,488/- r.w. Note No. 1 appended thereto for the A.Y. 2005-06. A similar amount of disallowance was also made while computing the total income for the A.Y. 2006-07 which is placed at Page Nos. 324 and 326. We also note that for A.Y. 2007-08 an amount of Rs.1,47,14,614/- was disallowed vide Clause

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

96,24,249/-. It is not in\ndispute that deduction has not been denied by the CPC for\nnon-fulfillment of the conditions by the assessee which are\nrequired as per the provisions of section 10AA of the Act. The\nalleged exemption has been disallowed

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

96,24,249/-. It is not in\ndispute that deduction has not been denied by the CPC for\nnon-fulfillment of the conditions by the assessee which are\n\nrequired as per the provisions of section 10AA of the Act. The\nalleged exemption has been disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JALNA vs. VIKRAM TEA PROCESSOR PRIVATE LIMITED , JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

96,000 CUP COMPANY 3 BHAVESH R PATEL PURCHASE OF TEA LEAF 171,111,019 Cost plus AND POWDER 1108536 method Kgs. 4 BHAVESH R PATEL MACHINERY HIRE 597,000 CUP 252000, RENT 345000 TOTAL 1,091,880,205 3. He noted that the assessee has adopted CPM method as the most appropriate method. However, in absence of the mark