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

36(1)(va) of the Act treating as under reported under sub section (2) of Section 270A of the Act whereas disallowance of deduction of Health & education cess u/s 37 of the Act was considered under reported is in consequence of misreporting of income under section 270A

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

36(1)(va) of the Act in relation to aforesaid contribution amounting to Rs. 13,06,741. The Appellant filed response letter dated 18/03/21 to Jurisdiction AO, Solapur copy enclosed as Annexure B. contending that such adjustment cannot be made under section 143(1) since the issue is covered in favour of the Appellant and nonetheless, debatable in nature

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

36(1)(va) of the Act in relation to aforesaid contribution amounting to Rs. 13,06,741. The Appellant filed response letter dated 18/03/21 to Jurisdiction AO, Solapur copy enclosed as Annexure B. contending that such adjustment cannot be made under section 143(1) since the issue is covered in favour of the Appellant and nonetheless, debatable in nature

SUKIBA MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 143(1) at the\ntime of processing of impugned return.\nAdditional Ground: 10/08/2023\n3.\nOn the facts and in law the AO has erred in making\nadjustment/addition of Rs.1,89,01,924/- in the order u/s 143(1)\nwithout verification of PF challans and by disallowing entire amount\npaid for PF u/s 36(1)(va) thereby treating Employers

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

36(1)(va) of INR 29,602 made under the intimation order under section 143(1), without assigning any reasons whatsoever. and ITA.No.2800/PUN/2024 Springer Nature Technology and Publishing Solutions Private Limited 7. The learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been reported as paid within the due date specified under the respective

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

36(1)(va) of INR 29,602 made under the intimation order under section 143(1), without assigning any reasons whatsoever. and ITA.No.2800/PUN/2024 Springer Nature Technology and Publishing Solutions Private Limited 7. The learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been reported as paid within the due date specified under the respective

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

36(1)(va) for late payment of employee contribution to PF Fund (ii) Variation of Computation of tax liability The assessee opted for new tax regime u/s115BAA of Income-tax Act, 1961 In the Clause 8(a) of Tax Audit Report it has been reported that the appellant opted for the new tax regime u/s 115BAA of Income

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is a company filed return of income on 01-02- 2020. The CPC, Bangalore disallowed an amount of Rs.5,80,68,573/- for not depositing the employee’s contribution of PF/ESIC before prescribed due dates under

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

68,72,632 to the taxable income of the Appellant including an adjustment of INR 2,10,10,000/- on account of transfer pricing matters and INR 58,62,632/- on account of corporate tax matters. 4 2. The Ld AO has erred in not providing a copy of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Board) approval for transferring

LEAR INDIA ENGINEERING LLP,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 36(1)(va) disallowance / addition of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund involving a sum of Rs.52,68,646/- on the ground

LEAR INDIA ENGINEERINGLLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 36(1)(va) disallowance / addition of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund involving a sum of Rs.52,68,646/- on the ground

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. Having aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction if the employee‟s contribution is paid before due dates of filing return of income. The CIT(A) on an examination of Tax Audit Report held that the assessee did not deposit

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. Having aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction if the employee‟s contribution is paid before due dates of filing return of income. The CIT(A) on an examination of Tax Audit Report held that the assessee did not deposit

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. Having aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction if the employee‟s contribution is paid before due dates of filing return of income. The CIT(A) on an examination of Tax Audit Report held that the assessee did not deposit

M/S CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. Having aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction if the employee‟s contribution is paid before due dates of filing return of income. The CIT(A) on an examination of Tax Audit Report held that the assessee did not deposit

ADITYA SHANKAR CHOUDHARI,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.333/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Aditya Shankar Vs Ito Ward Choudhari, 10(1), Akurdi, House No. 125/2, Hill Pune Range, Phase 4, Deolali Camp-422401 Maharashtra Pan-Afopc0286M Appellant Respondent

section 35(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the fact that of the Act. u/s 43B of the Act 2. The CPC ought not to have made the addition of Rs 1,103/-, being any sum payable by way of contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund

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

36(1)(va) of IT Act, 1961, being ESIC contribution of AY 2019-20, by rejecting the appellant's contention. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT has erred in making an addition of the consultancy charges of Rs.60,000/- debited to Profit and Loss account by disregarding the appellant

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

36(1)(va) of IT Act, 1961, being ESIC contribution of AY 2019-20, by rejecting the appellant's contention. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT has erred in making an addition of the consultancy charges of Rs.60,000/- debited to Profit and Loss account by disregarding the appellant