VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

natural justice and without giving any opportunity of hearing. ITA No.1738/PUN/2016 Vascon Engineers Ltd., (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd.,) 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in assessing the income from sale of ‘Matrix IT Building’ at Rs 1,79,78,415/- as part of business income. a. The Ld. CIT(A)-haserred

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

natural justice. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary documents with regard to his claim. After considering the same, CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order. Accordingly, ground No.5 raised in appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 32. In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004-05 is partly allowed for statistical purpose

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

natural justice. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary documents with regard to his claim. After considering the same, CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order. Accordingly, ground No.5 raised in appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 32. In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004-05 is partly allowed for statistical purpose

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

natural justice. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary documents with regard to his claim. After considering the same, CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order. Accordingly, ground No.5 raised in appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 32. In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004-05 is partly allowed for statistical purpose

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-10,, PUNE vs. THERMAX BABCOCK & WILCOX LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.402/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Thermax Ltd. (Formerly Known As Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. Amalgamated With Thermax Ltd.) Mumbai Pune Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 004. Pan: Aaact3908K ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

depreciation on the expenditure held under capital account. 10 CO No.22/PUN/2014 ITA Nos.508 & 713/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2004-05 & 2005-06 9.1 In respect of ground No.2 of the Revenue‟s appeal, the ld. DR fairly admitted that the issue has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee‟s group concern in assessment year 2004-05. 9.2 In respect of ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THERMAX LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.402/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Thermax Ltd. (Formerly Known As Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. Amalgamated With Thermax Ltd.) Mumbai Pune Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 004. Pan: Aaact3908K ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

depreciation on the expenditure held under capital account. 10 CO No.22/PUN/2014 ITA Nos.508 & 713/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2004-05 & 2005-06 9.1 In respect of ground No.2 of the Revenue‟s appeal, the ld. DR fairly admitted that the issue has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee‟s group concern in assessment year 2004-05. 9.2 In respect of ground

THERMAX LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.402/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Thermax Ltd. (Formerly Known As Thermax Babcock & Wilcox Ltd. Amalgamated With Thermax Ltd.) Mumbai Pune Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 004. Pan: Aaact3908K ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

depreciation on the expenditure held under capital account. 10 CO No.22/PUN/2014 ITA Nos.508 & 713/PUN/2014 A.Ys.2004-05 & 2005-06 9.1 In respect of ground No.2 of the Revenue‟s appeal, the ld. DR fairly admitted that the issue has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee‟s group concern in assessment year 2004-05. 9.2 In respect of ground

ROXILER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD5(4), PUNE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

natural justice cannot be stretched that far to lead to such absurd results. The position may, however, be different where an assessee does a particular act not within specified time but after the expiry thereof and makes an application for condonation of delay. In such cases, depending on the language of the statute and the object sought to be achieved

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE , PANVEL vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PVT. LTD, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 595/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation is grossly incorrect. 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in forming an opinion that the TPO failed to give show cause notice to the assessee and the transfer pricing adjustment was bad in law for not following the principles of natural justice

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

depreciation" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 72A.” 6. Now before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in compliance to section 115BAB(7) assessee has first time opted for this concessional rate of tax u/s.115BAB of the Act in the return filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THERMAX LTD.,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.509/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Thermax Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 Pan : Aaact3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

natural justice.’ 17. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the AO relied on the statements of certain persons recorded during the course of survey and search on M/s. Nupur Management and Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Sandeep Sitlani, for making the Thermax Ltd., addition of Rs.45,18,200/-, for which cross-examination

THERMAX LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.509/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Thermax Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 Pan : Aaact3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

natural justice.’ 17. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the AO relied on the statements of certain persons recorded during the course of survey and search on M/s. Nupur Management and Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Sandeep Sitlani, for making the Thermax Ltd., addition of Rs.45,18,200/-, for which cross-examination

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

justice. Accordingly, third part of the ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical purpose. 13. In the result, ground No.1 raised in appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. II. CLAIM OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS – GROUND NOs. 2 and 3 14. Ground No.2 raised in appeal by assessee relates to disallowance of short term capital loss of Rs.8

ASSISTANT OINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PYC HINDU GYMKHANA,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.179/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

natural justice. Accordingly, Ground No.6 is allowed for statistical purposes. 21. With regard to ground Nos. 7 and 7.1, the assessee filed the written submissions and the same are extracted as under: “Arguments for the assessee 3.2] It is submitted that a wrong inference of double deduction is sometimes drawn on the basis of decision in Escorts

NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

depreciation cannot be sustained in view of the factual and legal position discussed as above. We therefore are of the view that CIT (A) was fully justified in deleting the addition made by the AO in this regard. Order of CIT (A) does not call for any interference.” 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision on the same parity of reasoning

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIR-8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1302/Pun/2010 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Sveanagar, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012. Pan: Aaaca4074D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer further observed that expenditure debited to Software Development account mainly include purchase cost of new software such as Computer A.Y.2004-05 software-ICEM-CFD- Hexa Mesh Software etc. From the verification of the details of expenses, the Assessing Officer observed that it is clear that the same should have been capitalized instead of debiting

DY. CIT CIRCLE-8,, PUNE vs. M/S. ATLAS COPCO (I) LTD., PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1302/Pun/2010 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Sveanagar, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012. Pan: Aaaca4074D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

depreciation was allowed. The Assessing Officer further observed that expenditure debited to Software Development account mainly include purchase cost of new software such as Computer A.Y.2004-05 software-ICEM-CFD- Hexa Mesh Software etc. From the verification of the details of expenses, the Assessing Officer observed that it is clear that the same should have been capitalized instead of debiting

M/S. CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

justice and for the sake of completeness and consistency, it is just and proper to remand this issue of depreciation disallowance for this year also to the file of the AO. Therefore, we set aside the order of NFAC and remand the matter to the file of AO for adjudication as per law complying with the principles of natural