DHAVAL VINOD GADA,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Dhaval Vinod Gada Dcit, Circle – 5, Pune 101, New Timber Market, Vs. Bhawani Peth, Pune – 411042 Pan: Anjpg4733A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

40A(2)(b) of the Act. The land was purchased from Smt. Nenshi L. Shah, Shri Lalji K. Shah, Shri Shantilal Shah, who are the vendors and are residing in Mumbai. The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to Shri Manilal M. Gada on 02.03.2016 to submit copy of bank account and other details from

SANJAY VASANTRAO WANI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2491/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2012-13

68,670/-. Assessee did not maintain books of account exclusively for the Real Estate business. He however maintained books of account for the commission and 2 Sanjay Vasantrao Wani brokerage income. There is no dispute about the taxation of commission income. However, the dispute is about the income from Real Estate business. Considering the facts that the assessee

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

section 40A(3) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.66,20,000/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 6. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of the re-assessment proceedings. It was explained that the reopening

TARA CONSTRUCTIONS ,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

7. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee made the following submissions : “a) The Appellant has duly submitted all the relevant documents related to the parties from whom the unsecured loans have been taken. The documents submitted includes computation, ITR, Bank statements and ledger confirmation in order to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. (Copies

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68,19,249/- and Rs.5,55,82,030/-; assessment year wise, respectively paid to M/s Tata AutoComp Systems Ltd. The CIT(A)’s M/s. Adient India Pvt. Ltd. identical detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action

ADIENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -7,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68,19,249/- and Rs.5,55,82,030/-; assessment year wise, respectively paid to M/s Tata AutoComp Systems Ltd. The CIT(A)’s M/s. Adient India Pvt. Ltd. identical detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action

ADIENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 40A(2)(a)&(b) r.w.s. 37(1) disallowance(s) of administrative service charges amounting to Rs.3,04,14,743/-, Rs. 4,68,19,249/- and Rs.5,55,82,030/-; assessment year wise, respectively paid to M/s Tata AutoComp Systems Ltd. The CIT(A)’s M/s. Adient India Pvt. Ltd. identical detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action

SRL CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,JALNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.847/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Srl Construction Pvt. Ltd., V The Acit, 197, Khasgaon, Jafrabad, S Central Circle-2, Jalna – 444203. Aurangabad. Pan: Aaqcs7227L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateekjha – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)-Nagpur, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 08.03.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. A) On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & In Law, Honorable Pr. Cit (Central), Nagpur Has Erred In Not Considering The Submission Made By The Appellant In Fair And

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; dated 08.03.2024 for A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. A) On the facts and circumstance prevailing in the case and in law, honorable Pr. CIT (Central), Nagpur has erred in not considering the submission made by the appellant in fair and ITA No.847/PUN/2024 [A] judicious manner

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

40a(i) in respect of disallowance made in connection with foreign remittance made towards software and other services where TDS was not deducted. 5. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that major of the issues raised in cross appeals are covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case relating to assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. IGATE COMPUTER SYSTEM LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd., (In The Matter Of Erstwhile Igate Computer Systems Ltd. Formerly Known As Patni Computer Systems Ltd. & Since Amalgamated With Igate Global Solutions Ltd. & Now Name Changed To Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd.) Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc-Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hinjewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan:Aabcp6219N Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11, Pune आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.299/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

40a(i) in respect of disallowance made in connection with foreign remittance made towards software and other services where TDS was not deducted. 5. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that major of the issues raised in cross appeals are covered by the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case relating to assessment year

SILVER OAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT-6, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

68,901/- 3. 26.03.2019 Rs.1,71,440/- 4. 20.02.2020 Rs.31,76,561/- 4 8. It was accordingly requested to delete the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “5. Findings: The Grounds

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 40A(3). The brokers are in fact required to maintain separate bank account for the funds received from or on behalf of the clients so that the same do not merge with that of the broker himself. What is equally important is the date on which the shares were dematerialized. This is as no transaction could be carried

MOHAN DAGADU CHOUGALE,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

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 Mohan Dagadu Chougale Acit, Central Circle, C/O Kapil Dugdhalaya & Sweet Kolhapur Vs. Mart, 3068, A Ward, Kapiltirth Market, Kolhapur – 416002 Pan: Acwpc0051B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Mayuresh Doshi Department By : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date Of Hearing : 30-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R

40A(3) of the Act for cash payments. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.49,62,507/- on account of increase in capital under the head 'by self-account'. 8. On the facts

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, JALGAON vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

68 on account of alleged unexplained share application money. 2. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.1,81,389/- on account of disallowance of part of interest u/s.36 (1)(iii) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming

DCIT,JALGAON vs. MAHARASHTRA SOLVENT EXTRACTION P.LTD, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2013 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2010-11

68 on account of alleged unexplained share application money. 2. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.1,81,389/- on account of disallowance of part of interest u/s.36 (1)(iii) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in law the CIT(A) has erred in confirming

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

7 Sharada Erectors Private Limited (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961.In such a scenario, the order of the Assessing Officer would clearly be rendered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. This view is also supported by the following judicial precedents: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

40A(3), 40(a)(ia), sec. 37 etc. The Assessing Officer erroneously and negligently treated all cash deposits as sales made by the assessee ignoring the vital fact that the assessee himself had disclosed meager sale of Rs.14,72,581 in his Profit &% Loss account as a part and parcel of return of income filed by him. All these facts

VIJAY GULABRAO SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

40A(3) of the Act, to the income of Rs. 30,00,006/- returned by the assessee. 5. On appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the above addition(s) made by the Ld.AO, the assessee filed written submissions along with documentary evidence(s) in support of his claim. The Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC was however not satisfied with