KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD., (NOW MERGED WITH KPIT CUMMINS INFOSYSTEMS LTD),PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

section 10A of the Act on the increased income due to disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets amounting to ₹ 2.26 crores is though covered in favour of assessee by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (supra), however, since we have allowed the claim of assessee, the issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. KPIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

section 10A of the Act on the increased income due to disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets amounting to ₹ 2.26 crores is though covered in favour of assessee by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (supra), however, since we have allowed the claim of assessee, the issue

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

112 of the Act and has consequently computed incorrect tax liability 7. The Lid AO has erred in computing the tax liability on income earned by the Appellant from business operations and other sources by applying at an incorrect base rate of 30% instead of the applicable 25%. 8. The Ld. DRP and the Ld. AO have grossly erred

ASSISTANT OINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PYC HINDU GYMKHANA,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.179/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section (6) to provide that depreciation shall not be allowed as deduction in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income u/s.11. However the above amendment is applicable only from Assessment Year 2015-16 and the following High Courts have confirmed that this amendment will not apply to the preceding Assessment Years

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned thereafter in this section and in section 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year. Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant 9 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. assessment

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

depreciation in the fight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not concerned with the same. 45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

depreciation in the fight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not concerned with the same. 45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1068/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

depreciation. The assessee had shown book profits under section 115JB of the Act at ₹ 50,76,66,109/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises and made reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PRIVATE LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1068/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

depreciation. The assessee had shown book profits under section 115JB of the Act at ₹ 50,76,66,109/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had entered into international transactions with its associated enterprises and made reference under section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to determine

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

depreciation on the intangible assets, such as know-how acquired on or after 01-04-1998. He submitted that the MB India issued shares in lieu of genuine pre-existing debt and the same should be considered for consideration in cash. In this regard, he submitted that, as per the Company Law provisions, the issue of shares against a genuine

DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2003 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-09 वष"

depreciation on the intangible assets, such as know-how acquired on or after 01-04-1998. He submitted that the MB India issued shares in lieu of genuine pre-existing debt and the same should be considered for consideration in cash. In this regard, he submitted that, as per the Company Law provisions, the issue of shares against a genuine

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

depreciation @ 25% on written down value of the goodwill at Rs.14,112,506/-. Thus, ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 21. Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the denial of carry forward of long term capital loss in the facts and circumstances of the case

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

depreciation @ 25% on written down value of the goodwill at Rs.14,112,506/-. Thus, ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 21. Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the denial of carry forward of long term capital loss in the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

JAYA HIND INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

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

112. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. CIT-DR placed reliance on the decision of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. The issue involved in the present appeal relates to whether the expenditure incurred on the cost of Gripper which is used in the robotic arms forming part

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)

112 of the compilation, relevant para 9 at page 110), merely making an excess claim for deduction under Section 36(l)(viia) in the return of income cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. B.2. The dis-allowance is based on Explanation 2 to Section 36(l)(viia) introduced with effect from AY 2014-15. This heins

DAKSHIN MAHARASHTRA VEERSHAIV SAMAJ,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.929/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dakshin Maharashtra V The Income Tax Officer, Veershaiv Samaj, S Exemption Ward, 715, Akkadevi Mahadev Kolhapur. Mandap, Bindu Chowk, B- Ward, Kolhapur – 416002. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaatd4909P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/06/2025

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2018-19 dated 17.03.2025, emanating from order u/s.143(1) of ITA No.929/PUN/2025 [A] the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 16.07.2019. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Additional/Junior CIT(A)-1, Gurugram, NFAC erred in confirming

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

depreciation at the rate applicable to plant and machinery following the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. (x) With regard to the disallowance of expenditure on account of Freebies/Incentives to doctors amounting to Rs.2,90,94,637/-, the ld. CIT(A) considering the fact that this expenditure is only

ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION),, PUNE

In the result, this appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.466/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Association Of Consulting Civil The Commissioner Of Income Engineers, Vs Tax, Exemption, Pune. Sthapathya Bhavan, Damani Complex, Datta Chowk, Solapur – 413 007. Pan: Aacaa 6603 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

112,245.00 of Properties— Realized On bank account________ To Establishment Expenses 2,342,507.50 -Shedule 1 By ACCE annual fees a/c 413,214.00 Other Expenses By Calender sponsorship a/c 60,869.00 To Audit Fees To Miscellaneous Expenses 1,860.00 By Engineer’s sponsorship 30,000.00 a/c To Expenditure on objects -- of the Trust— By competition fee 15,000.00 By booklet