E-GAIN COMMUNICATIONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2675/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 E-Gain Communications Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Ltd., Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, The Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 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)- 13, Pune. [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 11.08.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Egain Communication

TDS; but is a statutory deduction on an asset which is otherwise eligible for deduction of depreciation. Section 40(a)(i) and (ia) of the Act provides

PUSPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

TDS & Service Tax of Rs.12,715/-. (iv) Disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of Rs.21,16,195/-. (v) Disallowance of depreciation

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

depreciation\naggregating to Rs.4,74,83,007/- incurred by the assessee in earlier years.\nThe assessee also preferred an appeal against the action of the Ld. AO in\nnot granting the advance tax credit to the assessee of Rs.1,65,00,000/-\nand Rs.86,00,000/- paid by YAPL and ADEPL respectively and non-\ngranting of TDS

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

TDS on the commission paint was negligible. Paragraph 5 deals with the expenditure incurred fowants research and development Paragraph 6 deals with the issue of depreciation

M/S. MGI COUTIER EXOTECH INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation. This ground is not allowed. 18. Ground No.7 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.13.00 lakh towards Design and development charges from Mahindra & Mahindra. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that TDS

DANFOSS POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.592 & 593/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Danfoss Power Solutions India Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Pvt. Ltd., Gate No.94-100, High Cliff Industrial Estate, Wagholi Rahu Road, Village- Kesnand, Pune- 412207. Pan : Aafcs2954P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 22.11.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 01.12.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.02.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.592/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

depreciation on goodwill on the ground that the claim was not made in the return of income and the goodwill is already amortized in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.18,18,322/- on the ground that the addition on account of assessee had failed to deduct TDS

DANFOSS POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.592 & 593/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Danfoss Power Solutions India Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Pvt. Ltd., Gate No.94-100, High Cliff Industrial Estate, Wagholi Rahu Road, Village- Kesnand, Pune- 412207. Pan : Aafcs2954P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 22.11.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 01.12.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.02.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.592/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

depreciation on goodwill on the ground that the claim was not made in the return of income and the goodwill is already amortized in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.18,18,322/- on the ground that the addition on account of assessee had failed to deduct TDS

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS credit and hence the carry forward of MAT credit of erstwhile company has to be allowed to the amalgamated company. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that section 72A, like some other provisions distinctly dealing with the effects of amalgamation, exclusively applies to accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS credit and hence the carry forward of MAT credit of erstwhile company has to be allowed to the amalgamated company. 13. The upshot of the above discussion is that section 72A, like some other provisions distinctly dealing with the effects of amalgamation, exclusively applies to accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2013-14 The Asstt. Cit Cir. 6, Pune. Appellant Vs. M/S. Shriniwas Engineering Auto C-10 Abhimanshree Society, Baner Road, Pune-411008 Pan : Aajcs 8944F Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hari Krishan Respondent By : Shri R.G. Gawli Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-05-2022 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

TDS. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order held that similar issue came up for consideration before him in the immediately preceding assessment year ie.. 2014- 15 and for the reasons mentioned in his order dated 3-7-2017 directed the A.O not to reduce

MAN TRUCK & BUS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.814/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vs Dcit, Circle 7, Man Truck & Bus India Private Limited, Pune Level 3, Malpani Agile,Pan Card Club Road, Baner, Pune-411045 Maharashtra Pan-Aaecm6932E Appellant Respondent

depreciation. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned AO has erred in considering the erroneous computation of total income in intimation issued under 143(1) of the Act while passing the final assessment order. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances

M/S KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2021-22

TDS after verification. 10. The Ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He submitted that the assessee should not have any grievance since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC had directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim and pass necessary rectification order. 6 11. We have heard the rival arguments made

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

depreciation charged by Appellant and the comparable companies on the simi lar category of assets. 11. Erred in considering foreign exchange gainl loss as non-operating in nature while computing the operating margins of the Appellant and the comparable companies Erred on facts and in law in considering foreign exchange gain/loss as non- operating in nature while computing the operating

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

depreciation for Rs.1,76,06,470/- Purchase invoice for Sokar Power Generation system - Rs.9,63,909/-, Computer copier - Rs.32,473/- & Rs.23,400/-, Mobile-Rs.57,946/- and Furniture- Rs.3,03,726/-. 3. Furnish EB receipt and Property tax receipt. 4. RBL Bank Account statement (No.1037521) for the period from 01.02017 to 31.03.2018. 5. You have received dividend from Mahesh

BALAJI UDYOG,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Balaji Udyog, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Jalgaon. J-81, Midc Area, Jalgaon- 425003. Pan : Aagfb2522E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay Kawadia Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit(A). Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Interest Paid To Partners Amounting To Rs.19,23,457/- U/S 40(B) Of The Act. He Specifically Erred In Law In Recasting The Capital Accounts Of The Partners On Account Of Non-Provision Of Depreciation In Books Of Account. 2) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs.1,13,286/-Being 10% Of The Various Expenses Debited To Profit & Loss Account.

depreciation to the P & L account only with the intention to increase the capital balance of the partners so as to provide them higher amount of interest. As communicated to the assessee vide this office letter dtd. 23.11.2017, the re-cased capital account and thus arrived at excess interest paid to the partners amounting to Rs.19,23,457/- is disallowed

COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

depreciation claims; as the case may be, involving varying sums. We thus treat the first and foremost assessment year herein AY 2000-01 involving assessee’s and the Revenue’s cross appeals ITA Nos. 610 & 1015/Pun/2004 as the “lead” year. 3. We now advert to the foregoing twin “lead” cases and note that the assessee’s substantial ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. COCA-COLA INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

depreciation claims; as the case may be, involving varying sums. We thus treat the first and foremost assessment year herein AY 2000-01 involving assessee’s and the Revenue’s cross appeals ITA Nos. 610 & 1015/Pun/2004 as the “lead” year. 3. We now advert to the foregoing twin “lead” cases and note that the assessee’s substantial ground

COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

depreciation claims; as the case may be, involving varying sums. We thus treat the first and foremost assessment year herein AY 2000-01 involving assessee’s and the Revenue’s cross appeals ITA Nos. 610 & 1015/Pun/2004 as the “lead” year. 3. We now advert to the foregoing twin “lead” cases and note that the assessee’s substantial ground