PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

127 (SC). Again reference was made to order of CIT(A) at page 31 i.e. contention 5, where it was held that the assessee was claiming reduced depreciation at higher rates and the Assessing Officer on the other hand, was of the view that depreciation was to be thrust upon at the income tax rates and reworked

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

127 (SC). Again reference was made to order of CIT(A) at page 31 i.e. contention 5, where it was held that the assessee was claiming reduced depreciation at higher rates and the Assessing Officer on the other hand, was of the view that depreciation was to be thrust upon at the income tax rates and reworked

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

127 (SC). Again reference was made to order of CIT(A) at page 31 i.e. contention 5, where it was held that the assessee was claiming reduced depreciation at higher rates and the Assessing Officer on the other hand, was of the view that depreciation was to be thrust upon at the income tax rates and reworked

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

127 (SC). Again reference was made to order of CIT(A) at page 31 i.e. contention 5, where it was held that the assessee was claiming reduced depreciation at higher rates and the Assessing Officer on the other hand, was of the view that depreciation was to be thrust upon at the income tax rates and reworked

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

127 (SC). Again reference was made to order of CIT(A) at page 31 i.e. contention 5, where it was held that the assessee was claiming reduced depreciation at higher rates and the Assessing Officer on the other hand, was of the view that depreciation was to be thrust upon at the income tax rates and reworked

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

127 (SC). Again reference was made to order of CIT(A) at page 31 i.e. contention 5, where it was held that the assessee was claiming reduced depreciation at higher rates and the Assessing Officer on the other hand, was of the view that depreciation was to be thrust upon at the income tax rates and reworked

W.B. ENGINEERS INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (HQ)-IV,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 755/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

depreciation claimed @10% on Stone Crushing equipment acquired during the year amounting to Rs.41,54,127/-. The assessee challenged the order before the ld. CIT(A) but without success. 4. I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The first issue is against the initiation of re-assessment proceedings. It is noticed that the original

SAHYADRI KARAD HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

127/-, as disallowed in both the lower proceedings. 3 ITA.Nos.562 & 563/PUN./2024 4. We note in this factual backdrop that the learned lower appellate authority has upheld the CPC's action proceedings disallowing the assessee unabsorbed depreciation carried forward claim in A.Y. 2019-2020 as under : “The claim of the appellant that brought forward losses of the previous years

SAHYADRI KARAD HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

127/-, as disallowed in both the lower proceedings. 3 ITA.Nos.562 & 563/PUN./2024 4. We note in this factual backdrop that the learned lower appellate authority has upheld the CPC's action proceedings disallowing the assessee unabsorbed depreciation carried forward claim in A.Y. 2019-2020 as under : “The claim of the appellant that brought forward losses of the previous 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 COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

127(1) for some years other than the year in question has no relevance or bearing on territorial jurisdictional competence. In deciding so, it was also observed that the: `decisions of the High Courts are binding on the subordinate Courts and authorities or Tribunal under its superintendence throughout the territory in relation to which it 11 and IT(TP) A.No

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

depreciation claim could not be rejected under section 40(a)(i) as held in PCIT Vs. Tally solutions P. Ltd., [2021] 430 ITR 527 (Karnataka). This issue is accordingly decided in assessee’s favour and against the department. 21. The assessee’s 8 to 8.2 substantive grounds seek to reverse the lower authorities action assessing its sum of Rs.10

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. FRESENIUS KABI INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2095/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Section 32(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are applicable ignoring the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Times Guarantee Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA No.4917/4918/Mum/2008 in which it was held that brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and carry forward of loss cannot be set off against income under the head business and profession for more than eight

HUECO ELECTRONICS (I) PVT.LTD,(NOW KNOWN AS HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS PUNE (I) PVT.LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.02/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 43A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, the same cannot be applied in the present case. In Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC), Hon. Supreme Court decided the issue in clear terms holding that “the law may, therefore, now be taken to be well settled that where the profit or loss arises to an assessee

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

depreciation of each windmill which has already been set off against other business income of the assessee, cannot be notionally brought forward, as done by the assessing officer. The appellant has claimed that similar disallowance was made by the learned A.O. in the earlier years but the said action of the assessing officer has not been upheld at the level

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

depreciation of each windmill which has already been set off against other business income of the assessee, cannot be notionally brought forward, as done by the assessing officer. The appellant has claimed that similar disallowance was made by the learned A.O. in the earlier years but the said action of the assessing officer has not been upheld at the level

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

depreciation of each windmill which has already been set off against other business income of the assessee, cannot be notionally brought forward, as done by the assessing officer. The appellant has claimed that similar disallowance was made by the learned A.O. in the earlier years but the said action of the assessing officer has not been upheld at the level

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

depreciation of each windmill which has already been set off against other business income of the assessee, cannot be notionally brought forward, as done by the assessing officer. The appellant has claimed that similar disallowance was made by the learned A.O. in the earlier years but the said action of the assessing officer has not been upheld at the level