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

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

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

R B DIAMOND HOUSE,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-1, RANGE -25, CIRCLE -1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- JALGAON

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

justice. This has lead to a denial of effective opportunity for a\nhearing.\nGround No. 2: Violation of Section 250(6)\n2.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A)/ NAFC\nfailed to comply with Section 250(6), requiring reasoned findings on\neach ground of appeal.\nGround No. 3: Non-response of Notices

AAM INDIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

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

natural justice. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the following grounds are raised on merits Ad-hoc addition of INR 7,53,20,000 being 10% of total trade payables 6. Erred in sustaining an ad-hoc addition of INR 7,53,20,000 being 10% of total trade payables under section 41(1) of the Act 7. Erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

depreciation on the goodwill arising out of purchase of business by the assessee from Royal Bank of Scotland. Assessment orders for A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17, are at Exhibit 19 and 20 (page 145 to 168 of the paperbook) 5 16. Given that substantial addition made during A.Y. 2014-15 was only resulting in deferment of taxes, the assessee

M/S KUTE SONS DAIRYS LTD.,SATARA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.410/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kute Sons Dairys Ltd., Vs. Pcit-3, Pune. S.No.406/407, At Nimbhore, Post Surwadi, Taluka Phaltan, Satara- 415523. Pan : Aabck0391C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri N. K. Rander Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Pune (‘The Pcit’) Dated 30.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Initiating Proceedings U/S.263 & Passing The Order Without Proper Jurisdiction. Appellant Prays To Declare Proceedings & Order Bad In Law.

Natural Justice. 3. Pr. Commissioner has erred in setting aside the issue of additional depreciation on New Plant & Machinery purchased

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

natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when

MITHI SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2371/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mithi Software Technologies V The Income Tax Private Limited, S Officer, 101, Mayfair Court, Nachiket Ward-14(3), Pune. Park, Baner Road, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aabcm9352P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Agra Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 25.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of

depreciation of Rs.1,03,38,647, though duly declared in the RETURN OF INCOME, available and claimed as per law u/s 72 and 32(2). The appellant pleads that the denial of such set-off is contrary to the provisions of the Act and principles of natural justice

PARAG MILK FOODS PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1), , PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

natural justice. We order accordingly. Ground No.1 in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Regarding the other issue on subsidy received by the assessee as per ground Nos.2 & 3, the assessee is aggrieved against the estimation of sales tax benefit of Rs.15,37,63,279/- received under the package scheme of incentive 2007 and the AO while

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE vs. PARAG MILK FOODS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

natural justice. We order accordingly. Ground No.1 in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Regarding the other issue on subsidy received by the assessee as per ground Nos.2 & 3, the assessee is aggrieved against the estimation of sales tax benefit of Rs.15,37,63,279/- received under the package scheme of incentive 2007 and the AO while

PARAG MILK FOODS PVT. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1), , PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

natural justice. We order accordingly. Ground No.1 in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Regarding the other issue on subsidy received by the assessee as per ground Nos.2 & 3, the assessee is aggrieved against the estimation of sales tax benefit of Rs.15,37,63,279/- received under the package scheme of incentive 2007 and the AO while

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4, , PUNE vs. PARAG MILK FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

natural justice. We order accordingly. Ground No.1 in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Regarding the other issue on subsidy received by the assessee as per ground Nos.2 & 3, the assessee is aggrieved against the estimation of sales tax benefit of Rs.15,37,63,279/- received under the package scheme of incentive 2007 and the AO while

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance has been computed under the provisions of the Act. 4.3.2 Action under section 147 is permissible even if the Assessing officer gathers his reasons to believe from the very same record as has been the subject matter of the completed assessment proceedings. There might indeed be a presumption that the assessment proceedings have been

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance has been computed under the provisions of the Act. 4.3.2 Action under section 147 is permissible even if the Assessing officer gathers his reasons to believe from the very same record as has been the subject matter of the completed assessment proceedings. There might indeed be a presumption that the assessment proceedings have been

APPASAHEB NALAWADE GADHINGLAJ SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.,KOLHAPUR vs. DC/ACIT CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation, amounting to Rs. 22,09,817/- be allowed in full. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice

BUILT UP,PUNE vs. ADIT, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Built Up Adit, Cpc, Bangalore 1, Samda Apartment, Vs. Dr Ketkar Margs, Ghodke Chowk, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aaefb6432D (Appellant) (Respondent)

natural justice. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not considering judicial precedents cited before him. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in considering the technical glitch on the portal which delayed uploading of the Form 10CСВ. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

justice. 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the basis of reopening was the information obtained and the notings in the seized material from a search u/s 132 of the Act in the case of Sri Sachin Nahar. Referring to para 6 12 CO No.43/PUN/2025 page 4 of assessment order, the Ld. Counsel

SWA ASHOKRAO BANKAR NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMPALGAON (B) TAL. NIPHAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1749/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23

natural justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society and during the year under consideration apart from carrying out activity of providing credit facilities to its Members it also took on lease sugar factory and carried out the business activity for A.Y. 2022-23. Nil income declared in the return furnished