DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation from A.Y. 1997-98 upto the A. Y. 2001-02 got carried forward to the assessment year 2002-03 became part thereof, it came to be governed by the provisions of section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years, without

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1040/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-1, Kolhapur. ……….. आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/S. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., B-1, Midc Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur-416003. Pan: Aaaak0230D ..……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Smt. Kesang Y. Sherpa Assessee By : Shri Sushant Phadnis सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2020 आदेश / Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeal)-1, Kolhapur Dated 17.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal On Record: “1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Was Justified In Holding That The Payment Of Rate Difference Of Rs. 43,73,21,677/- After The Closure Of The Accounting Year Do Not Amount To Distribution Of Profits, As The Amount To Be Paid Was Not Out Of The Profits Ascertained At The Annual General Meeting ? 2) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Was Justified In Holding That The Payment Of Rs. 43,73,21,677/- On Account Of Rate Difference Is Out Of Commercial Expediency, When There Is No Demand From Milk Suppliers ? 3) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 7,28,153/- Made By The Ao Towards Depreciation On Fixed Assets On Project Without Deducting Subsidy

115/- from NDDB as per grant agreement to purchase of machinery and/or equipments. The assessment to the tune of Rs.33,18,20,381/- were transferred to Fixed Assets in F.Y. 1998-99 i.e. A.Y. 1999-2000. As per the provisions of section 43(1) of the Act, the depreciation

NIRAMAYA MEDICAL FOUNDAION AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.793/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Niramaya Medical Foundation The Ito, Ward-2(4), Pune. & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., Vs Gat No.105, Plot No.245-249, . Jalochi Taluka, Baramati, Pune – 413102. Pan: Aabcn 3300 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Pune’S Order Dated 10.01.2017 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)- 2/Ito Wd-2(4)/Pn/534/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

depreciation as per books of accounts under sub clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB. 4.2 The AO however in the asst order has reduced business loss of Rs.478,664 as per statement of carried forward losses u/s 72 of the IT Act while computing book profit Ws 115JB of the Asst Order. The AO has referred to section

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

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

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

115 BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 wherein Act states as under- “115BBE (1) where the total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (a) the amount of income-tax calculated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

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

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

115 BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 wherein Act states as under- “115BBE (1) where the total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (a) the amount of income-tax calculated

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

115 BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 wherein Act states as under- “115BBE (1) where the total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (a) the amount of income-tax calculated

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

115 BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 wherein Act states as under- “115BBE (1) where the total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (a) the amount of income-tax calculated

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

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

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

115 BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 wherein Act states as under- “115BBE (1) where the total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (a) the amount of income-tax calculated

INDUS BIOTECH LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

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

115-O of the Act to the Ld. AO without appreciating the fact that the said credit is also duly reflected in Form 26AS and relevant facts/documents are available on record with the Ld. AO. 4.2 The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant credit of DDT Ground No. 5 5.1 Without prejudice to the Ground

HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO.PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.570/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Lohia Jain House, Bhandarkar Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411045. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaach4226Q बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-11, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Vardhaman Jain Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2020 आदेश / Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp : This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 16.01.2017 On The Following Grounds As Originally Raised :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.6,13,115, Being Depreciation On Car. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Further Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of Rs.1,88,07,686 U/S 80Ia(4) Of The I T Act, 1961.” 2. At The Time Of Hearing Before Us, Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Have Agreed That The Issue Involved In Ground No.1 Of This Appeal Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Out Of The Depreciation On Car For Personal Use Of Directors Is Squarely Covered In Favour Of The Assessee By The Decision Of This Tribunal Rendered In Assessee’S Own Case For The Immediately Preceding Assessment Year I.E. A.Y. 2012-13 Vide

115, being depreciation on car. 2. The learned CIT(A) further erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of the claim of Rs.1,88,07,686 u/s 80IA(4) of the I T Act, 1961.” 2. At the time of hearing before us, ld. Representatives of both the sides have agreed that the issue involved in ground

COVENTYA INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, PUNE

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 3030/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Coventya India Private Limited Gat No.520 B, Shelkewadi, Rihe Andhale Road, Ghotawade Mulshi, Pune-412 115 Pan : Aaecc5710A .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

115 PAN : AAECC5710A .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishore Phadke Revenue by : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 29.04.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2021 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.09.2017 passed

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

115 ITR 519 had observed as under:— "What section 57(iii) requires is that the expenditure must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income. It is the purpose of the expenditure that is relevant in determining the applicability of section 57(iii) and that purpose must be making or earning

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

115 ITR 519 had observed as under:— "What section 57(iii) requires is that the expenditure must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income. It is the purpose of the expenditure that is relevant in determining the applicability of section 57(iii) and that purpose must be making or earning

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

115 ITR 519 had observed as under:— "What section 57(iii) requires is that the expenditure must be laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income. It is the purpose of the expenditure that is relevant in determining the applicability of section 57(iii) and that purpose must be making or earning

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LIMITED, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1236/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Assistant Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Commissioner Of Income V Dudhutpadak Sangh Limited, Tax, S B-1, Midc, Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416234. Pan: Aaaak0230D Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sandeep P. Sathe – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/04/2024 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], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2019.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Rs.5,62,220/- On Account Of Fixed Assets On Which Project Subsidy Was Received From National Dairy Development Board As The Department Has Contested The Issue Before The Supreme Court. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Limited [R]

115/- from the actual cost of assets. Hence, AO re-worked the depreciation and made an addition of Rs.5,62,220/-. It has been mentioned in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer that for earlier years, in assessee’s own case this issue has been decided in favour of assessee and Department’s Appeal is pending before

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

depreciation claimed by the appellant in the earlier years as the assets have now been held to be stock in trade by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of Rs.3,89,26,200/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in Revenue recognized