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 263 of the Act, we find that since the assessee has himself not pressed Ground No.4 relating to disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act at Rs.1,68,194

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act should have been applied in this regard and the decision of the Ld. AO to not draw any adverse inference about the substantive loan of Rs.3,37,65,561/- was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3.5 The assessee filed her detailed reply to the show cause notice issued

KIMBERLY CLARK LEVER P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2481/Pun/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Kimberly Clark Lever P. Ltd., Gat No.934 To 937, Village Sanaswadi Off Nagar Road, Ta- Shirur, Pune-412208. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaack4647E बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-Xi(I), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) Of The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’ For Short) Dated 29.10.2012 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 29 October 2012 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Pune [‘Acit’ Or ‘Ao’] Following The Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Drp’) In Respect Of The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Among Other Grounds:

194-J against the assessee does not arise. Hence, we see no reason to entertain question (b) raised by the Revenue.” 27. In the light of the above decisions, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned expenditure does not fall within the meaning of commission thereby attracting the provisions of section 194H of the Act. Therefore

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 194 IA vide the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, wherein in the definition of the term 'consideration for transfer of any immovable property' is defined to include "all charges of the nature of club membership, car parking fee, electricity or water 13 ITA.No.1375/PUN./2024 (Tapadiya Construction Ltd.) facility fee, maintenance fee, advance fee or any other charges

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

68- unexplained cash credits, being unsecured loans by concluding that 2 ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] appellant has failed to discharge its primary onus, given an opportunity your appellant is in position to provide all the details of such loan amount credited in bank account and therefore the entire addition in unwarranted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

68- unexplained cash credits, being unsecured loans by concluding that 2 ITA Nos.1438 & 1439/PUN/2024 [A] appellant has failed to discharge its primary onus, given an opportunity your appellant is in position to provide all the details of such loan amount credited in bank account and therefore the entire addition in unwarranted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances

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)

68 of the IT Act on account of agricultural income of Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-, Ld. CIT(A) also reduced the addition made on account of other expenses of Rs.35,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/-. However, the addition of Rs.5,12,194/- made u/s 40A(3) and assessee’s claim of deduction of Rs.2

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)

68 of the IT Act on account of agricultural income of Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-, Ld. CIT(A) also reduced the addition made on account of other expenses of Rs.35,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/-. However, the addition of Rs.5,12,194/- made u/s 40A(3) and assessee’s claim of deduction of Rs.2

VIJAYSINGH J JADHAVRAO,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5),, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Vijaysingh Jaysingh The Income Tax Officer - 2(5) Jadhavrao Pmt Building Shivajinagar Vs. Swargate, Pune 411037 Jangali Maharaj Road Pune 411005 Pan – Aaqpj3021L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Hari Krishan Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 29.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2012-13 Is Against The Cit(A)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 28.07.2017 Passed In Case No. Cit (A), Pune-3/10424/2015-16 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act).

Section 80IB(10) deduction of Rs.3,76,98,194/- as derived from sale of housing project/unit as per corresponding joint venture agreement dated 01.12.2006 executed with M/s. Raviraj Realties. His next argument in light of the additional ground read with additional evidence petition dated 26.04.2022 is that its foregoing income deserves to be treated under the head “capital gains

M/S DHULE NANDURBAR DISTRICT POLICE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,DHULE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

68,547/- and Rs.1,33,961/- made by Assessing Officer in the assessment order(s) dated 28.11.2019 and 24.03.2021, for 2 ITA.Nos.194 & 195/PUN./2024 assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, respectively, representing interest income from the investments made in co- operative/scheduled bank(s). The same is found to be no more res integra in light of this tribunal

M/S DHULE NANDURBAR DISTRICT POLICE CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,DHULE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

68,547/- and Rs.1,33,961/- made by Assessing Officer in the assessment order(s) dated 28.11.2019 and 24.03.2021, for 2 ITA.Nos.194 & 195/PUN./2024 assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, respectively, representing interest income from the investments made in co- operative/scheduled bank(s). The same is found to be no more res integra in light of this tribunal

M/S. TATA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1433/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Tata Technologies Limited, Plot No.25, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hingewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaact3092N Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation)-Ii, Pune

194(5) of the Act were squarely applicable for payment of licence fees and the assessee was bound by the law to deduct tax before remitting money to non-residents. The assessee was held to have committed default in terms of section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act by not deducting or withholding tax and thus, held

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

194 TAXMAN 192 (Bom). 9. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue referring to the order of Assessing Officer pointed out that he denied depreciation on intangible assets as no classification was available. He referred to page 14 of Paper Book- II in para 1.5 and pointed out that there was no clarity of what was the nature of asset

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

194 TAXMAN 192 (Bom). 9. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue referring to the order of Assessing Officer pointed out that he denied depreciation on intangible assets as no classification was available. He referred to page 14 of Paper Book- II in para 1.5 and pointed out that there was no clarity of what was the nature of asset

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

194 TAXMAN 192 (Bom). 9. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue referring to the order of Assessing Officer pointed out that he denied depreciation on intangible assets as no classification was available. He referred to page 14 of Paper Book- II in para 1.5 and pointed out that there was no clarity of what was the nature of asset

ENAYAT EBADAT HUSSAIN,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.161/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Enayat Ebadat Hussain, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.34, Gut No.20, Near S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Noori Masjid, Chunchale Amdar Satpur Ambad Link Roadk, Nashik – 422010. Maharashtra. Pan: Acdph9890C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare –Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 29.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.11.2024 for Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.161/PUN/2025 [A] “1 The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing appeal by not condoning the delay when the appellant was prevented by reasons beyond his control 2. The learned

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE vs. FERRERO INDIA PVT.LTD, PUNE

section 92F(v) of the Act and thus constitutes a transaction. Therefore, the excess expenditure incurred by the taxpayer for Brand Promotion of its AE constitutes an international transaction. The TPO observed that though taxpayer has sold the products the ultimate beneficiary is the manufacturer whose products have been sold and therefore, the brand name of the manufacturer

M/S. SAVA HEALTHCARE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, 70% of world profits are added in the hands of assessee under guise of Profit Split Method

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1062 To 1068/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2013-14

section 92(A)(1) of the Act, because once the Assessing Officer refers the transactions to TPO, he will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO as mandated by section 92CA(4) of the Act. The Ld. AR referred to Instruction No.3/2003, dated 20.05.2013, which is under old scheme, copy of which is placed