DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.201/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

26,69,877/- claimed in the return e-filed on 30.09.2015. Case processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by validly serving of statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. So far as the issue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, ld. Assessing Officer during the course of assessment

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

depreciation allowance or any other allowance has been computed under the provisions of the Act. The very fact that reasons are recorded and notice u/s 148 11 was issued goes to show that the AO had applied his mind and was satisfied himself about the re-opening of the case. The IT Act envisages that the AO should only have

ASHOK NARAYAN BHOSALE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Narayan Bhosale, The Deputy Commissioner Of Ashok Narayan Bhosle Bunglow At Vs Income Tax, Kaveri Nagar, Pratham Housing Cirlce-8, Pune. Society, Wakad, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaspb 3588 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/03/2022

26,000/- under the head Income from House Property. 3. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. However, the appellant had filed written submission on 19/07/2021. The appellant has mentioned as under: Quote “Considering the judgment passed by Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench B (ITA No.2789/Mum/2012) AY 2009-10, in the case of Mitc Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., additional

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

10% as against 15% claimed by the respondent-assessee. 26 On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) following the decision of ITAT for the assessment year 2001-02 till assessment year 2012-13 held them as forming part of Plant & Machinery, accordingly, allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us challenging

SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, LATUR,LATUR vs. ACIT (EXMP.) CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

depreciation on assets of Rs.76,612/- and expenditure on\nother purposes, but incidental to the main propose, such as salary arrears\nbills, nutritious food expenses, exam expenses, building rent and other\nexpenses etc. amounts Rs.23,19,261/- which are incurred wholly and\nexclusively for the purpose for which the income or earnings are made. He,\ntherefore, prayed that the exemption

AIR CONTRAL INDIA PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

section 32(1)(iia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is upheld and the ground is dismissed.” 3. Both the learned representatives reiterated their respective stands against and in support the lower authorities’ action under challenge disallowing the assessee’s additional depreciation claim. We make it clear that the assessee has already been granted normal depreciation on the corresponding fixed asset

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. SHRI. ULHAS MALLIKARJUN PATIL,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

10% and computed WDV at Rs. 1,25,67,506/- as on 01.04.2012. The AO computed short term capital gain of Rs. 2,11,38,477/-. ITA No.1751/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 (A) Shri Ulhas M. Patil 5.4 During appellate proceedings the appellant submitted that the appellant has inadvertently declared the rent received as income from business instead of income