SUPERFINE METALS P LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), , PUNE

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 631 To 634/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2010-2011 To 2013-14 Superfine Metals Private Ltd., E29/E39, Supa Midc, Tal. Parner, Ahmednagar – 414302 . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aakcs6038H बनाम / V/S. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Central Circle 1(2), Pune द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Bunch Of Five Appeals Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11 [For Short “Cit(A)”] All Dt. 16/11/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Arose Out Of Rectification Orders Dt. 20/02/2021 Passed U/S 154 By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2010-11 To 2013-14. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 12

rectification application u/s 154(1) of the Act, after the expiry of time limit prescribed u/s 154(7) of the Act, this brings us to adjudicate two issues; 9.1 Whether intimation passed u/s 143(1) can be rectified after the expiry of statutory time limit prescribed u/s 154(7) of the Act. 9.2 Whether claim for additional depreciation

SUPERFINE METALS P LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), , PUNE

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 631 To 634/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2010-2011 To 2013-14 Superfine Metals Private Ltd., E29/E39, Supa Midc, Tal. Parner, Ahmednagar – 414302 . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aakcs6038H बनाम / V/S. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Central Circle 1(2), Pune द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Bunch Of Five Appeals Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11 [For Short “Cit(A)”] All Dt. 16/11/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Arose Out Of Rectification Orders Dt. 20/02/2021 Passed U/S 154 By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2010-11 To 2013-14. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 12

rectification application u/s 154(1) of the Act, after the expiry of time limit prescribed u/s 154(7) of the Act, this brings us to adjudicate two issues; 9.1 Whether intimation passed u/s 143(1) can be rectified after the expiry of statutory time limit prescribed u/s 154(7) of the Act. 9.2 Whether claim for additional depreciation

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the IT Act, was a debatable issue & cannot be subject matter of proceedings u/s 154 of the IT Act. 14. Accordingly, in view of above discussion we set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) & quash the rectification

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the IT Act, was a debatable issue & cannot be subject matter of proceedings u/s 154 of the IT Act. 14. Accordingly, in view of above discussion we set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) & quash the rectification

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

rectification order. 6 11. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. We find the assessee in the instant case has exercised the option u/s 115BAA of the Act to tax its income at lower rate. The CPC for the assessment year

MADHUKAR SAHAKARI SK.LTD.,,FAIZPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

rectification order u/s. 154 dated 03-02- 2005, the unabsorbed depreciation of RS.1,39,14,187/- for A.Y. 1991-92 was allowed

MAGARAJ MISHRIMAL RATHI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

rectification application. All these documents were again produced before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC also. But Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not considered any of the document but simply relied the order u/s 154 passed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed the same. It was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that only 3 additions are under challenge

SUVARNA KIRAN CHAVAN,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

u/s 154 on 02.08.2022\nexplaining the arithmetical logic of Income disclosed under\nappropriate heads of Income. However in rectification order the\nIncome Tax Department has not correctly considered Income from\nBusiness & Profession which results in Income Tax Demand of Rs.\n1,14,10,750/-.\nThe appellant has further submitted that on analysis of the reasons\nfor differences and incorrect treatment

NAGAR URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

rectification application u/s 154 of the Act, for claim of depreciation on the Government Securities / exemption of dividend income which

ASHIRWAD CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE, PUNE

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

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

rectification of total income to Rs. 1,86,20,170/- was already done 3 ITA No.190/PUN/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 being a mistake apparent from the record. The same as resulted in a change of opinion of the Ld. AO. The appellant has also submitted that the Ld. AO has not disposed off the specific objections against re-opening u/s

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

154\nof the Act which was pending before the Ld. AO at the time of appellant\nproceedings before him. He therefore directed the Ld. AO to dispose of the\nsaid rectification application after due verification thereby allowing these\ngrounds of appeal raised by the assessee for statistical purposes.\n5.\nDissatisfied the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

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

SHRIRAM BAHU UDDESHIYA SEVABHAVI SANSTHA,SANGLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

depreciation of Rs.33,84,042/-, which was although disallowed earlier in the original order but omitted to be considered at the time of computing the total income. The assessee contested the validity of the rectification order u/s.154 before the ld. CIT(A) but without success. 4. The ld. AR submitted that the AO gave only 3 days time

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

154/-. Subsequently, the assessee also filed second revised return on 9-12- 2014 declaring total income of Rs. 29,71,88,270/-. The AO has completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28-3-2016 determining the total income at Rs. 31,30,34,893/-. While computing the total income, the A.O has considered total income

ADHAR PROJECT WELFARE SOCIETY,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

154 of the Act. The JAO, after having gone through information available, concluded that the appellant was not eligible to avail exemption u/s 11 of the Act for the AY 2016-17 as necessary approval u/s 12AA of the Act was not obtained by it. The appellant filed return of income in ITR 7 which is applicable for an institution

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. FLOWLINE SYSTEMS PVT LTD, NEW PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2168/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner V Flowline Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, S 401, 402, Bhoomi Landmark, Panvel. New Panvel, Dist-Raigad. Maharashtra – 410206. Pan: Aabcf1096R Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri A R Sakhalkar & Shri M.R.Dharmadhikari –Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 14.08.2024 For A.Y.2021-22 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Issued By Adit(Cpc), Bangalore. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

rectification application which was rejected by ADIT(CPC), Bangalore. Aggrieved by the order u/s.154, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 5.1 The ld.CIT(A) in para 5.2 has held as under : “5.2 Ground of appeal No. 1 It is claimed by appellant that amount of 20854382/- wrongly added in total income. It is seen that this amount represents

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, KOLHAPUR vs. SADASHIVRAO MANDLIK KAGAL TALUKA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,, KOLHAPUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. The Revenue pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 2 I.T.A.No.2730/PUN./2017 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the law, the CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur

BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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 Claim v. Default in TDS vi. Default in TDS & Disallowance for such Default vii. Refund Claim viii. Business Loss ix. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment x. Disallowance u/s 40A(7) (Gratuity provision) xi. Expenses incurred for Earning Exempt Income xii. Excess Contribution to Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund xiii. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xiv. Business Expenses

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

rectification request. The relevant observations of the Tribunal have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 40. We find although the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Revenue, however, the Assessing Officer has denied the claim of the assessee on the very same procedural grounds i.e. not claiming exemption u/s 11 in the return