ANUJ UMESH GOEL,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1632/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 234A and 234B of the Act. The assessee claims that it had paid self assessment tax in installments of ₹ 68

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

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

68 of I.T. Act, 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 13) The assessee denies liability to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act, 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

68-77of the appeal set). There was no adjustment to the book profit as per section 115JB of the Act as computed at by the assessee wherein BFL of ~INR 138.84 crore brought forward from AY 2013-14 was set-off in computing the book profit.  Thereafter, on 24 February 2021, the AO issued a notice

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

68-77of the appeal set). There was no adjustment to the book profit as per section 115JB of the Act as computed at by the assessee wherein BFL of ~INR 138.84 crore brought forward from AY 2013-14 was set-off in computing the book profit.  Thereafter, on 24 February 2021, the AO issued a notice

AMIT SURESH AGRAWAL,SATARA vs. ITO WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal 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 The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

68 is not attracted in this case. The addition is wholly unjustified and deserves to be deleted in its entirety. 7. Without prejudice to the legal grounds above, the learned CIT(A) has erroneously dismissed the appeal ex-parte without proper examination of facts and merits of the case. The learned CIT(A) has ignored the genuine reasons, including health

SWATHI KEWAL NEMMANIWAR,KINWAT NANDED vs. ASST. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

68, and the tax calculated as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND 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

234A of the Act of INR 2,13,902, without assigning any reason whatsoever. 13. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of INR 66,02,052, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Excess levy of interest under section 234C of the Act and ITA.No.2800/PUN/2024 Springer Nature Technology and Publishing Solutions Private Limited

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

234A of the Act of INR 2,13,902, without assigning any reason whatsoever. 13. The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section 234B of INR 66,02,052, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Excess levy of interest under section 234C of the Act and ITA.No.2800/PUN/2024 Springer Nature Technology and Publishing Solutions Private Limited

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the I.T. Act is not understandable. Thus, the Approving Authority without application of mind and in a most mechanical and technical manner granted approval under section 153D even without reference to any reason in the Order under section 153D of the I.T. Act. We, even, otherwise failed to understand that in search cases how an approval

CHETAN ASHOK DOSHI,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

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

234A, 234B and 234C is not justified. 4) The appellant craves to leave, add/amend or alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Before me, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is a case where the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.10 lakhs u/s 68 of the Act received from Smt. Vaswani and Shri

VISHAL ASHOK CHUGERA,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-1(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant has failed to substantiate the loans raised from these loan creditors. 33. As regards to the loan raised from Shri Ramesh Chhabria, it is seen that Shri Ramesh Chhabria had disclosed an income of Rs.6,21,120/- in his ITR for AY 2020-21. On the other

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

68. 6) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming above addition by overlooking explanations submitted to him and. 7) The Assessing Officer wrongly charged interest u/s 234A, B, C and D and initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(b). 8. In ground No.1 of the appeal, the assessee

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

68. 6) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred in confirming above addition by overlooking explanations submitted to him and. 7) The Assessing Officer wrongly charged interest u/s 234A, B, C and D and initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(b). 8. In ground No.1 of the appeal, the assessee

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1296/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Leelavati Vijaykumar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Kotecha, 2(1), Nashik. 4, Teachers Colony, Ring Road, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Alvpk4435H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case Vide Ita Nos.1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13, Order Dated 26.04.2018 Had Adjudicated The Issue Ex-Parte & Dismissed The Above Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, On Miscellaneous

section 68 does not apply and even though the source of Rs. 47,12,511/- was attributable to advance received from Dipesh as above said and the said explanation was rejected by the Assessing Officer even during the remand proceedings. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) erred

M/S. EATON INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.536/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Eaton Industrial Systems Pvt. Ltd., 145, Off Mumbai Pune Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pimpri, Pune – 411018 …. Pan: Aabce4955C Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

68,000/- to the international transactions of manufacturing business in respect of the truck components unit and an adjustment of ₹ 77,78,613/- to the international transactions in respect of import of fixed assets. The Assessing Officer thereafter, passed draft assessment order dated 26.03.2013 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative

SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT. LTD ,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), DELHI ADDITIONAL / JOINT/ DEPUTY/ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.255/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sas Research & The Additional / Joint / Development(India) Private Vs Deputy / Assistant Limited, Commissioner Of Income Level 1, 2A & 3, Tower 5, Tax / Income-Tax Officer, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, National E-Assessment Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. Centre, Delhi. Pan: Aaecs 8099 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal– Ar Revenue By Shri Shivraj B Moray – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Additional/Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, Dated 06.04.2021For The A.Y. 2016-17 Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai, Dated 24/03/2020. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Sas Research & Development (India) Private Limited (‘Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The National E- Assessment Center, Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13),144C(13),143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 6 April 2021 Pursuant To The Directions Issued By Hon’Ble Dispute Resolution Panel - 3 (‘Hon’Ble Drp’), Mumbai, Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 19 February 2021, On The Following Sas Research & Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., [A]

234A, 234B, 243C and 3 SAS Research and Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., [A] 243D of the Act and initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant assessee company filed its return of income on 29/11/2016 declaring total income of Rs.18,28,30,770/-. The Assessing Officer

NANDU ATMARAM WAJEKAR,PANVEL RAIGAD DISTRICT vs. ACIT CIRCLE PANVEL, PANVEL RAIGAD

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

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

68,050/- Business Income 2014-15 Rs.3,91,758/- Interest Income 2015-16 Rs.2,09,51,187/- Business Income 2015-16 Rs.8,90,146/- Interest Income Total Rs.11,59,01,141/- Thus, the assessee has admitted to have undisclosed income of Rs.11,59,01,141/- in form of business income & interest income for A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16. However, keeping

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

68 by Ld. NaFAC without appreciating the valid submission filed by the Appellant and 5 ITA No.1767/PUN/2025 [A] hence, the same is bad in law and thus, the impugned addition may please be deleted. 15. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding