DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

256(1) and (2) of the Act, the attempt failed. There was no further challenge to the settled consistent judicial view taken on the issue. It was also pointed out that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Babu's case [1996] 222 ITR 606, had been challenged by the Revenue before this court, but the special leave

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

68 of the Act for the above amount. The appellant has submitted that all three ingredients such as, credit worthiness, genuineness and the identity of the share applicant have been proved and therefore, the addition should not have been made by the AO. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessment records were also obtained from AO and the same

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHSANSTA MARAYADIT,NASHIK vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1625/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Seti Sahakari Pathsanstha S. Income Tax Department, Maryadit, Delhi. Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs.66,80,575/-disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the DTAA. Article 12 of DTAA with USA stipulates and defines what is royalty and fees for technical services. The term ‘royalty’ as per clause 3 of Article 12 means payment of any kind received as consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR vs. UPPAL JITENDRA SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax unpaid sundry creditors u/s 41(1) in respect of M/s Arpit Enterprises of Rs.16,14,500/- and in respect of M/s. V.S.N. Trading Co. of Rs.12,35,500/-. The factual background of the above additions is as under : During the previous year relevant to the assessment year

UPPAL SHAH PROP-J K SUGARS,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the cross appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax unpaid sundry creditors u/s 41(1) in respect of M/s Arpit Enterprises of Rs.16,14,500/- and in respect of M/s. V.S.N. Trading Co. of Rs.12,35,500/-. The factual background of the above additions is as under : During the previous year relevant to the assessment year

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

section 68 are absent, the addition made is 9 prima facie unjustified. He submitted that the CIT(A) / NFAC without understanding the evidence on record in a very cryptic order has sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer which is not correct. 16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 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)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs. 66,80,575/- disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATHASANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMAPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee for A

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩलसं. / Ita Nos.1596 & 1598/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Income Seti Sahakari Pathasanstha S Tax Department, Delhi. Maryadit, Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Nashik – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 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)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19, Both Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 15.12.2019 & 24.02.2021 Respectively. For The Sake Of

256 ITR 385) and thus the total deduction of Rs. 66,80,575/- disallowed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) or 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act was not justified. 3. The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing

SARIKA ASHOK SATAV,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1952/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 68 addition as per Ivan Sing V/s. ACIT (2020) 422 ITR 128 (Bom.) Learned counsel further argued that the assessee had paid the impugned alleged unsecured loans to the creditor parties through her sisters-in-law in subsequent assessment year. He lastly argued that the by lower authorities have not restricted impugned additions to the extent

BHUSHAN UTTAMRAO BACHHAV,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.503/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 वष"

section 68 of the Act. 6. In response, the assessee submitted confirmation letters in most of the cases and also the affidavits in all cases confirming the said payment of Rs.4 lakh each in cash to the assessee. Lack of credit worthiness and genuineness of the transactions etc. were scrupulously examined by the AO. Unsatisfied with the explanation

SANGEETA ARUN DESHMUKH,SATARA vs. ITO, WARD-5, SATARA

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.172/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

2) notice dated 31.08.2015 to the assessee. This first and foremost legal argument is rejected. 5. Learned counsel next contended that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in invoking section 68 and 69 additions herein 3 A.Y. : 2014-15 Sangeeta Arun Deshmukh despite the fact that the assessee had not maintained any books

THE JALGAON PEOPLE'S CO.OP BANK LTD,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.698/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Jalgaon People‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd. 152, Polan Peth Dana Bazar, Jalgaon-425 001 Pan : Aacat1603M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

68,490/- separately to the profit & loss account as bad debts written off, but the same have not been added back to the computation of income. However, in view of the proviso to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, it is established position in law that in case of an assessee to whom provisions of Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

2. Dr. Amin’s Pathology Laboratory vs. P.N. Prasad, Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (2001) 252 ITR 673 (Bom) 3. ACIT v. M.P. Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 160 (Indore-Trib) 4. ITO v. TechSpan India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 92 taxmann.com 361 (SC) 5. Chetan Sabharwal vs. ACIT (2019) 110 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi) 16 CO No.21/PUN/2024 6. Subhodh

PARAS JAVERILAL JAIN,,DHULE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

2. On the facts and in the circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provision of law, it may please be held that the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.21,849/- even-though, provision of section 14A is not applicable to the facts of the case, as sufficient own funds were