BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

82 results for “depreciation”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,374Mumbai1,257Bangalore300Ahmedabad282Chennai276Kolkata176Jaipur141Chandigarh95Pune82Hyderabad80Raipur58Indore46Lucknow28SC26Surat23Karnataka22Visakhapatnam21Jodhpur15Amritsar15Cochin15Guwahati15Rajkot15Cuttack14Nagpur12Telangana10Patna9Kerala6Ranchi5Calcutta4Jabalpur3Allahabad3Dehradun3Panaji3Rajasthan1Agra1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income70Section 143(3)57Section 271(1)(c)53Penalty43Section 12A38Depreciation33Section 69B30Disallowance28Section 1126Section 143(2)

INTERVALVE POONAWALLA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 636/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation of Rs.89,42,896/- which is the subject matter for levy of penalty. 3. The assessee filed an appeal

Showing 1–20 of 82 · Page 1 of 5

25
Section 271B25
Section 10(20)24

SHREEM ELECTRIC LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 898/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Shreem Electric Limited, V The Assistant Plot No.43 To 46, S Commissioner Of Income L.K.Akiwate Industrial Tax, Estate, Jaysingpur, Shirol, Central Circle, Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416144. Pan: Aaccs4893C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak -Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 31/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.01.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Penalty Under Section 270A Of Rs.3,01,124/-. Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur[A] 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That, Since The Addition Is Made On Adhoc Basis, No Penalty Can Be Levied. 3. The Penalty Levied May Please Be Delete. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. There Is A Delay Of Two Months Of Filing Appeal Before This Tribunal. Considering The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit, We Are Convinced With The Reasons For Delay & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay.

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)

depreciation to the 20% on account of machinery purchases from M/s Raidance Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. Further, the AO also initiated penalty

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Penalty imposed on excess claim of depreciation - Rs 5,10,000 53. The assessee had sold one building owned by it, during

KRISHI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI,SOLAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, SOLAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/PUN/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.77/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 Krishi Utpanna Bazar Sammittee, The Asst. Commissioner Basveshwar Market Yard, Tal: Vs Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Akkalkot, Solapur – 413216. Solapur. Pan: Aaaak 1791 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Pune-10’S, Order Dated 06.11.2019For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Involving Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Levying The Penalty Of Rs.2,02,600/- By Passing Order U/S 271(1)(C) By Disregarding The Appellants Contention.”

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation Rs.1,47,527/- The AO levied Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 30/06/2011 for the impugned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2 (1),, PUNE vs. M/S. ISMT LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 259/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri P.I. PatwaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation claimed would be disallowed. For which the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) by placing

ALPHA FOAM LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -8,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1122/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1122/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Alpha Foam Limited, The Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. J-172, Midc, Bhosari, Vs Pune – 411026. . Pan: Aacca 4196 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 07/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-6, Pune’S In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-6/10040/2018-19 Dated 12.06.2019, In Proceedings U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”]. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A

penalty amounting to Rs.3,41,940/- imposed by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 30.03.2018 regarding four folded disallowances of depreciation

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

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

ITA 2589/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Miss Aarti ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act, inter alia, by observing as under: “6.1 On the given facts, I find that this is clearly a case of inadvertent mistake on part of the appellant, in as much as an incorrect figure for opening WDV of block of assets has been adopted for the purpose of computing the admissible depreciation

ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANNAPURNA MAHILA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, PUNE

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

ITA 2108/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 69CSection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

depreciation claimed of Rs. 1,31,84,194/- treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C read with section 115BBE. Further penalty

MUKTESH PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MUKTESH CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2032/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2032/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Muktesh Private Limited, The Ito, Ward-11(1), (Formerly Known As Muktesh Vs Pune. Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.,), Sarvatra Housing Society, Paud Road, Pune – 411 029. P_An : Aabcm 1922 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Saurabh Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S.P. Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Pune For The A.Y. 2008-09 Dated 15.10.2019. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Engaged In The Manufacturing Of Dna Chemicals. However, It Discontinued The Business & The Sheds Were Given On Rent. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2008 Declaring Rs.Nil Income & Claimed Business Loss & Depreciation Loss Of Rs.4,77,246/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny. The Assessee Shown Rental Income Of Rs.4,77,246/- & Claimed Set Off Against The

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation loss. Eventually, the AO, in the assessment completed u/s.143(3) treated the same as income from house property and levied penalty

MR. ASHWIN RAJENDRA BADE,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 1892/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1892/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

penalty u/s.271AAC is initiated on this ground. 6. Subject to the above, the total income of the assessee is recomputed as below : Income from business after Rs.1,00,56,640/- depreciation

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 286/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three 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.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

penalty on the basis of addition made u/s 50 of the Act. The factum of sale of Helicopter for a consideration of Rs1,20,78,500/- was duly reflected in the annual accounts of the assessee. However, while computing the amount of admissible depreciation

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 288/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three 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.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

penalty on the basis of addition made u/s 50 of the Act. The factum of sale of Helicopter for a consideration of Rs1,20,78,500/- was duly reflected in the annual accounts of the assessee. However, while computing the amount of admissible depreciation

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 287/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three 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.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

penalty on the basis of addition made u/s 50 of the Act. The factum of sale of Helicopter for a consideration of Rs1,20,78,500/- was duly reflected in the annual accounts of the assessee. However, while computing the amount of admissible depreciation

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

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1724/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Pune14 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1723 & 1724/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10 Dcit, Panvel Circle, Vs. M/S. Johnson Matthey Panvel Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.6A, Midc Industrial Estate, Taloja, Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410208 Pan: Aabcj1620M Appellant Respondent

Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation allowance for the similar amount, resulting into total income at Nil. The matter of additions was assailed before the ld. CIT(A) and then the Tribunal. It is an admitted position that the Tribunal deleted the additions, which are forming the subject matter of instant penalty

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

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1723/PUN/2018[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Pune14 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1723 & 1724/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10 Dcit, Panvel Circle, Vs. M/S. Johnson Matthey Panvel Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.6A, Midc Industrial Estate, Taloja, Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410208 Pan: Aabcj1620M Appellant Respondent

Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation allowance for the similar amount, resulting into total income at Nil. The matter of additions was assailed before the ld. CIT(A) and then the Tribunal. It is an admitted position that the Tribunal deleted the additions, which are forming the subject matter of instant penalty

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED , AURANGABAD

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

ITA 1682/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak and Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

depreciation on P&M by Rs.72,02,700/- and the same is hereby disallowed and made to the total income of the assessee. As the assessee has not shown particulars of income correctly in its return for the year under consideration, reasons as mentioned hereinabove, 3 penalty

KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 707/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.707 & 708/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Laxmanrao Kirloskar Road, Khadki, Pune. Pune- 411003. Pan: Aaack7297E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri C. H. Naniwadeker Revenue By Shri Anurag Shivastava Date Of Hearing 11-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12-04-2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am : Both These Appeals Are Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 7, Pune’S Two Separate Orders Commonly Dated 08.01.2018 For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Therefore, 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.707/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on TG-III [Turbo Generato (TG-3)] @ 80% under entry no.III 8(ix)(D) of the Part A of Appendix I and the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that no documentary evidence was furnished. 6. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty

KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 708/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.707 & 708/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Laxmanrao Kirloskar Road, Khadki, Pune. Pune- 411003. Pan: Aaack7297E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri C. H. Naniwadeker Revenue By Shri Anurag Shivastava Date Of Hearing 11-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12-04-2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am : Both These Appeals Are Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 7, Pune’S Two Separate Orders Commonly Dated 08.01.2018 For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Therefore, 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.707/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on TG-III [Turbo Generato (TG-3)] @ 80% under entry no.III 8(ix)(D) of the Part A of Appendix I and the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that no documentary evidence was furnished. 6. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE vs. ZEAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1642/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Puranikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

depreciation under the guise of revenue expenses and such facts could only be revealed because of initiation of assessment proceedings and if so being the case, the element of bonafide belief was miserably absent.” 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the penalty

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

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

ITA 1501/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

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.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 274Section 32(1)Section 40

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