ASHOK NARAYAN BHOSALE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Narayan Bhosale, The Deputy Commissioner Of Ashok Narayan Bhosle Bunglow At Vs Income Tax, Kaveri Nagar, Pratham Housing Cirlce-8, Pune. Society, Wakad, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaspb 3588 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/03/2022

Assessment Order was passed on 29/09/2015 making addition of Rs.85,47,488/- on account of Disallowance of Additional Depreciation claim,Rs.2,84,917/- u/s14A, and Rs.1,26,000/- under the head Income from House Property. 3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. However, the appellant had filed written submission on 19/07/2021. The appellant has mentioned as under: Quote “Considering

ZF STEERING GEAR (INDIA) LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14

assessment order dated 4-12-2012, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). 5 ZF Steering Gear India Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 (iv) CIT(A) vide order dated 5-8-2013 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) by relying on the decision for 2009-10 directed to allow 50% of the additional depreciation

PRIDE AND EXPERT PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (1) , PUNE

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

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

block of assets and neither the assessee had claimed depreciation and therefore, invoking of the said provision is not as per the frame-work of the Act. The relevant facts on the issue are that during the assessment

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

block assessment roped in only the undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved, resulting in multiple assessments. Under section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer has been given the power to assess or reassess the "total income" of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders. This means that there can be only one assessment order

M/S GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Block of intangible asset (goodwill). This claim of the assessee has been allowed vide assessment order dated 31-03-2022 passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The said assessment order has been revised by holding that depreciation

NAWAB PASHASAHEB JAMADAR,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपीऱ सं. /Ita No.731/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Global Panacea Hospital, Latur Gross Golden Jubilee, B-Block, Mahaeboob Nagar, Ambajogai Road, Latur – 413 512, Maharashtra Pan : Aaopj3902E Appellant Respondent

depreciation, section 32(1) categorically provides that the building etc. is “owned, wholly or partly by the assessee and used for the purpose of business or profession”. Thus, it is manifest that a particular asset can enter into a block only when it is “used for the purpose of the business”. If a particular asset is not used

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation on the same should be given in the subsequent year including the assessment year under consideration. 18. Here again, we find that the additional ground of the assessee cannot survive if the AO, after capitalizing the software expenditure amounting to Rs.15,60,198/- for the assessment year 2007-08, continued with the enhanced value of block

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

depreciation on the same should be given in the subsequent year including the assessment year under consideration. 18. Here again, we find that the additional ground of the assessee cannot survive if the AO, after capitalizing the software expenditure amounting to Rs.15,60,198/- for the assessment year 2007-08, continued with the enhanced value of block

GHODAWAT SKYSTAR LLP (FORMERLY GHODAWAT CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLP),KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Ghodawat Skystar Llp Dcit, Circle – 1, Kolhapur (Formerly Ghodawat Consumer Products Llp) Vs. Plot No.438, Ap Chipri Via Jaysingpur Shirol, Kolhapur – 416101 Pan: Aamfg7028C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B S Rajpurohit Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 08-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

blocks. However, he noticed that in many of the cases the date of purchase and the date of put to use of the asset is stated 31.03.2018. Since the machinery requires some time for installing the same in the factory before commencing its commercial production, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain as to why depreciation

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.

assessment year 2002-03, Explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the IT Act was inserted which makes it compulsory for the assessee to claim deprecation on fixed assets. For ready reference Explanation 5 to section 32(1) is reproduced herein below :- “Depreciation. 32. (1) In respect of depreciation of— (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. SHRI. ULHAS MALLIKARJUN PATIL,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

block of assets specifically held entitled for depreciation, is a condition precedent for invoking the impugned deeming fiction u/s 50 wherein long term capital gains are assessed

ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under\nthis Act has been computed;\n(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a\nreturn of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information\nor document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-\nsection (2) of section 133C

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

assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and\n2018-19, і.е. post amalgamation.\n22. As regards the reliance placed by the Revenue upon the sixth\nproviso to Section 32(1) of the Act. we are of the considered view that\nthe sixth proviso to Section 32(1) of the Act presupposes that there\nexists a depreciable asset in the block

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

depreciation allowance in respect of a block of asset which has not been given full effect to prior to the assessment

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

depreciation allowance in respect of a block of asset which has not been given full effect to prior to the assessment

JAYNT VASUDEO ARADHYE,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.683/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Villa No.25, Indradhanu, Laxmi Peth, Vishnu Mill Compound, Solapur- 413001. Pan : Aappa8903M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2022-23 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. The Cpc Was Not Correct Both Factually & Legally In Not Considering The Claim Of Brought Forwarded Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs 27,78,028/-. 11. Section 143(1) As It Stands On The Statute Books As On Today, Does Not Permit Either Cpc Or The Ao To Make Such Adjustments As They Are Beyond The Scope Of The Said Section.

depreciation allowance in respect of a block of assets which has not been given full effect to prior to the assessment

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

blocks, cylinder heads, gear box housing, wheel hubs, differential housing, hydraulic pump housing etc. Return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 furnished on 30.09.2016 declaring loss of ₹1,45,99,312/-. Return processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently, case selected for Compulsory Manual Scrutiny followed by validly serving notices u/s.143

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

blocks, cylinder heads, gear box housing, wheel hubs, differential housing, hydraulic pump housing etc. Return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 furnished on 30.09.2016 declaring loss of ₹1,45,99,312/-. Return processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently, case selected for Compulsory Manual Scrutiny followed by validly serving notices u/s.143