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.

88 results for “depreciation”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai530Delhi404Kolkata201Bangalore196Chennai170Ahmedabad128Pune88Hyderabad67Cochin64Jaipur54Chandigarh48Visakhapatnam39Cuttack39Indore36Raipur34Surat24Rajkot23Jodhpur21Lucknow20Karnataka16Nagpur6Amritsar6Patna5Agra4Kerala2SC2Telangana2Varanasi2Panaji1Calcutta1Jabalpur1Guwahati1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 263222Section 143(3)129Section 17172Section 12A41Section 14740Depreciation37Addition to Income37Section 80I29Section 1128Revision u/s 263

VISHWA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL),,

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 599/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.596, 597 & 599/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nagpur आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

u/s 263. 5. The assessee in ITA Nos.596, 597 & 599/PUN/2015 has challenged the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act against assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act. 6. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the jurisdictional issue of exercise of revisionary power by the Commissioner

Showing 1–20 of 88 · Page 1 of 5

28
Section 10(20)24
Deduction23

VISHWA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX ,,

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 598/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.596, 597 & 599/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nagpur आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

u/s 263. 5. The assessee in ITA Nos.596, 597 & 599/PUN/2015 has challenged the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act against assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act. 6. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the jurisdictional issue of exercise of revisionary power by the Commissioner

VISHWA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL),,

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 596/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.596, 597 & 599/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nagpur आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

u/s 263. 5. The assessee in ITA Nos.596, 597 & 599/PUN/2015 has challenged the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act against assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act. 6. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the jurisdictional issue of exercise of revisionary power by the Commissioner

VISHWA INFRAWAYS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL),,

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 597/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.596, 597 & 599/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nagpur आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vishwa Infraways Pvt. Ltd., A-2/3, Pramukh Vihar, Naroli Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Silvasa – 396230 …. Pan: Aaccv7999Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

u/s 263. 5. The assessee in ITA Nos.596, 597 & 599/PUN/2015 has challenged the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act against assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act. 6. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the jurisdictional issue of exercise of revisionary power by the Commissioner

VIVEK NATHURAM GAVHANE,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PUNE

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

ITA 849/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 69C

depreciation and hence, there was no reason to revise the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act. 5] The appellant

M/S. ROHAN & RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE,,PUNE vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 633/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80I

revision because the second requirement also must be fulfilled.” 5. With respect to the issue of granting of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, he submitted that assessee is a partnership firm registered on 11.04.2001 with 3 companies as partners namely Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd, Rajdeep Buildcon Pvt. Ltd and Rajdeep Road Developers Pvt. Ltd. The profit sharing

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

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

ITA 1053/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

revision over 2 M/s Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd. passed u/s 263 of the Income tax Act is also bad in law, invalid and unsustainable in law. 3. The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issue of depreciation

APT PACKAGING LTD.,,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 1,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 627/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev ThakkarFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)

depreciation is concerned, he found the assessee’s contention to be acceptable. He therefore vide order dt.05.03.2015 passed u/s 263 of the Act directed the AO to disallow the claim of bad and doubtful debts. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT, assessee is now in appeal before us. 3. Before us, the ld. A.R. submitted that in the present case

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)

revised return of income on 31.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.1,20,54,68,920/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs.122,32,40,620/- by making disallowance of Rs.1,05,69,000/- u/s 2 14A r.w.s. 8D of the IT Rules. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed an order

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1227/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada S IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

revision by the Ld. PCIT is based on the internal audit objections for which a reply was also submitted by the assessee. He submitted that the reply filed to the audit objections has to be considered as part and parcel of record as per clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 263 and merely on basis of audit objection, proceedings

M/S. KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT - 4, PUNE

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

ITA 1030/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 41Section 41(1)

u/s 263 of the Act has observed as under: “10. For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. In fact, if the Principal Commissioner of Income

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 697/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)

u/s 142, there is no specific question. 5.3 Thus, it can be seen that the AO had not asked any question regarding the Loss claimed by the assessee. The Assessee has shown the Loss as under in the Return of Income : 36 Rates and taxes, paid or payable to Government or any local body (Excluding taxes o income) I Union

MAHANAGAR REALTY,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1004/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

revision of order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act as the order u/s 143(3) is passed after making due enquiries and application of mind. Hence, the order u/s 143(3) of the act is neither error nor is it prejudicial to the Interest of revenue.” 6 6. It was accordingly argued that the 263 proceedings may be dropped

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 395/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 263Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 69A

263 in the case of CIT, Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (85 taxmann.com 10) (Date of order 31.07.2017) holding that, where AO allowed claim of deduction u/s 80HHC without examining said claim with reference to unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance as referred to in sections 32 and 32A respectively, Commissioner was justified in invoking revision

BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 682/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan and Mrs. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40A(7)

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

GRANT MEDICAL FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1193/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar – CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

depreciation of Rs.33,00,69,972/-. However, since after making the above additions and after allowing the accumulation u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act to the extent of 15% of gross receipts at Rs.73,63,65,615/-, the net surplus was Nil for which the Assessing Officer determined the taxable income at Nil. 3. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(Exemption

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY.CIT, CIR.7, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/PUN/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact3467B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Tetra Pak India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’), Against The Order Dated 25 November 2010 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessing Officer’) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Dated 20 September 2010 Issued By The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Honorable Drp’), On The Following Grounds: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honorable Drp & Consequentially The Learned Ao Have: I Grounds Of Objections In Respect Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)

revision u/s 263(1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must exist to enable the Commissioner to exercise power u/s 263 namely (i) the order is erroneous (ii) by virtue of being erroneous, prejudice has been caused to the interest of the Revenue

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

revision proceedings before the Ld. PCIT : 5 ITA No.945/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 3.7 Before the Ld. PCIT, challenging the validity of proceeding u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee submitted that the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the assessee’s husband, Mr. Sandeep Satav has been substantiated by production of above details/documents and hence the assessment order is neither erroneous

MAHATMA PHULE GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. PCIT-1, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1049/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (written submission filed)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

depreciation and investment allowance as referred to in sections 32 and 32A respectively, the Commissioner was justified in invoking revision under section 263 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s

SRL CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,JALNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 847/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.847/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Srl Construction Pvt. Ltd., V The Acit, 197, Khasgaon, Jafrabad, S Central Circle-2, Jalna – 444203. Aurangabad. Pan: Aaqcs7227L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateekjha – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central)-Nagpur, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 08.03.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. A) On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & In Law, Honorable Pr. Cit (Central), Nagpur Has Erred In Not Considering The Submission Made By The Appellant In Fair And

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

depreciation on such assets. The reconciliation of the openig and closing balances of the tangible assets was reconciled by submitting the statement even though the honorable Pr. CIT (Central) Nagpur has considered the case against the appellant. In view of the ground taken above, the honorable Pr. CIT (Central), Nagpur has erred in treating the order passed by the assessing