GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

234A, 234B and 234C in clear terms impose a mandate to collect interest at the rates stipulated therein. The expression 'shall' used in the said sections cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as "may". This is clear from the fact that prior to the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1987, the legislature in the corresponding

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

68,00,896/- and ₹ 2,06,19,870/-, respectively. The Assessing Officer had erred in charging higher interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act without giving credit for the same. The CIT(A) in para 5 has directed that CBDT Circular No.2/2015, dated 10.02.2015 6 Annuj Goel be followed, but has not clarified the contents of said

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)

3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Act and additions in respect of transfer pricing and corporate tax issues were made vide assessment order dated 23rd December 2017 (refer Page No 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

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)

3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Act and additions in respect of transfer pricing and corporate tax issues were made vide assessment order dated 23rd December 2017 (refer Page No 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

SHRI PARSHWANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTH,SATARA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 68 of the Act by the Assessing Officer duly confirmed by him being arbitrary, illegal and bad-in-law be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)-12, Pune erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant society filed against the Assessment Order passed

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

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

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 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act, 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5. The grounds of appeal No.1 to 3

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 :

3. The Assessing Officer has erroneously reopened the appellant's case under Section 147 based on a search operation conducted at the premises of M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. Since the foundation of the present case emanates from search action wherein materials were seized, explored and enquired into, the provisions of Section

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

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, 234B & 234C of the Act, in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax ad determined by the learned Assessing

WIKA INSTRUMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2767/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Wika Instruments India V The Dcit, Private Limited, S. Circle-12, Pune. Hi-Cliff Industrial Estate, Kesnand, Pune – 412207. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacw2665A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Mutha – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act, Dated 25.10.2024 To Give Effect To The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel(Drp) Passed U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 26.09.2024 Emanating From Draft Assessment Order Under Section 144C(1) Of

section 144C(11) of the Act. 3. Ground 3: Erroneous denial of prepaid tax credit pertaining to the Amalgamating Entity 3.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DRP and Ld. AO has erred in denying credit of prepaid taxes amounting to INR 1,35,68,223 related to the amalgamating entity, Switzer

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

68. 3. To delete the interest charged u/s 234A, B, C and D and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(b). 3 [D] General: - • The appellant reserve rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. • This appeal is filed in time and may please be allowed in full. • A Detailed paper book along with

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

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

68, 69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

68, 69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

68, 69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

68, 69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

68, 69 and 69A, 69B and 69C of the said Act arises as the same have not been invoked by the Department. It is an admitted position between the parties as reflected even in the order of the AO that undisclosed income was in fact received by the respondent in the course of carrying out its business activities