DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE ,, PUNE vs. SHIVNAGAR VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

131 Taxman 386 wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had held as follows :- “3. As stated above, the first question which requires consideration by this Court is: whether depreciation was allowable on the assets, the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income under section

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

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

131 Taxmann 346 8. JCIT v. Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd. (Supreme Court) [2023] 146 Taxmann 197 9. PCIT v. Raja Transports (Madras HC) [2023] 154 Taxmann 589 8. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. MAHATMA GANDHI MISSION,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 1(1), Aurangabad …. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Mission, Mgm Campus, N-6, Cidco, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad Pan: Aaatm4256E अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Kumar, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Pramod Shingte

section 11 of the Act, even though cost of the asset had been allowed as application of income in the preceding year. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 9. The issue of claim of depreciation on assets cost of which has been allowed as application of income in the preceding year, has been decided

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. MAHATMA GANDHI MISSION,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 1(1), Aurangabad …. Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Mission, Mgm Campus, N-6, Cidco, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad Pan: Aaatm4256E अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Kumar, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Pramod Shingte

section 11 of the Act, even though cost of the asset had been allowed as application of income in the preceding year. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 9. The issue of claim of depreciation on assets cost of which has been allowed as application of income in the preceding year, has been decided

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE, (SMALLER HUF),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

section 131 of the Act, they were not utilized by the Assessing Officer in this proceedings. Further, the Assessing Officer further noticed that all the transactions done by HUF were in cash only and no transactions involving the banking channels were reported. That further, the brothers of Shri M.N. Navale (Karta of Bigger HUF) have borrowed various loans of small

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1255/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner L B Kunjir, Of Income Tax, V S.No.52/1 Swanand Circle-7, Pune. S Building, Shree Ram Hsg Society, Kharadi, Chandanagar, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabfl9816E Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri R.Y.Balawade – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 12/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order

depreciation of eligible business even when the same had been set off against income from non-eligible business in earlier years?” Brief facts of the case : 2. The assessee is a partnership firm. It filed return of income electronically for A.Y.2020-21 on 31.12.2020 declaring the total income of Rs.15,07,05,950/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation on assets, the assessee could not claim scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on the said expenditure of ₹ 2.01 crores. However, expenses incurred on purchase of fans and motor vehicles totaling ₹ 8,09,016/- were held to be allowed under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The CIT(A) further directed the revenue

COPPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation on assets, the assessee could not claim scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on the said expenditure of ₹ 2.01 crores. However, expenses incurred on purchase of fans and motor vehicles totaling ₹ 8,09,016/- were held to be allowed under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The CIT(A) further directed the revenue

D vs. DISHTI INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

depreciation of Rs.16,82,400/- (subsequently rectified at Rs.6,64,495/-). Accordingly, he is directed to delete the same. Thus, the ground is allowed.” 13.4 From the above, it is evident that the AO’s decision in applying Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act to the case of the assessee is misplaced. The conclusion