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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

MAHAKALESHWAR TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED,UJJAIN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.491 & 492/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Mahakaleshwar Tollways Pvt. Ltd., Ninora Toll Plaza Ninora, Ujjain – 456 001 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aafcm7676Q

section 32(1)(ii) A.Y. : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Mahakaleshwar Tollways Pvt. Ltd., of the Act. The Assessing Officer appears to have place reliance on the CBDT Circular No. 2014 dated 23.04.2014 that cost of construction of development of infrastructure facilities / roads/ highways under BOT projects is to be amortized and claimed as the eligible business expenditure. Needless

MAHAKALESHWAR TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED,UJJAIN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.491 & 492/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Mahakaleshwar Tollways Pvt. Ltd., Ninora Toll Plaza Ninora, Ujjain – 456 001 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aafcm7676Q

section 32(1)(ii) A.Y. : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Mahakaleshwar Tollways Pvt. Ltd., of the Act. The Assessing Officer appears to have place reliance on the CBDT Circular No. 2014 dated 23.04.2014 that cost of construction of development of infrastructure facilities / roads/ highways under BOT projects is to be amortized and claimed as the eligible business expenditure. Needless

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

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

133(6) of the Act for providing the financial statements for assessment year 2009-10, the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast on it in terms of section 68 of the Act i.e. the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transaction. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the various findings given

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

section 263 and opined that this was or could be a case of money laundering which went undetected due to lack of requisite enquiry into increase of share capital including premium received by assessee and non-application of mind - He thus held that assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/ 147 was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue and therefore

SMT. SUNITA G. DESAI,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, RATNAGIRI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2761/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt.Sunitag.Desai, The Income Tax Officer, Master Plaza, Jakadevi, Vs Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Khalgaon, Ratnagiri. Pan: Abopd 2868 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur Dated 01.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Ito, Ward-1, Ratnagiri (Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao) In Assessing Total Income Of Appellant At Rs, 50,34,254/- Instead Of Returned Income Of Rs. 4,05,200/-. 2. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Additionof Rs.33,79,054/- Made By The Learned Ao U/S 69C Of The Ita, 1961 For The Bogus Purchases From M/S. Adijin Enterprises & M/S. Hiten Enterprises; Without Appreciating That, No Any Enquiries Were Carried Out By The L-T Authorities In This Regard. 3. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur & The Learned Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That, The Said Bogus Purchases Of Rs. 33,79,054/- Were, Intact, Capitalized To Plant & Machinery & Depreciation Of Only Rs. 5,06,958/- (I.E. 15% Of Rs. 33,79,054/-) Was Claimed As A Deduction By Appellant During Ay 2009-10. The Learned

133(6) of the Act to these impugned entities from whom assessee claimed to have made purchases. These letters were returned unserved. It is mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee has not filed copies of Delivery Challan, Octroi bills, Stock registers etc to prove the delivery of the goods. The Sales Tax Authorities have already cancelled their registration

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

133/- @ 150% of expenditure incurred of Rs.5,70,78,756/-. The appellant requests your honour to kindly allow weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act.” 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was engaged in manufacturing of automobile and auto ancillary equipment. The assessee during the year under consideration had claimed expenditure on Research & Development

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

133/- @ 150% of expenditure incurred of Rs.5,70,78,756/-. The appellant requests your honour to kindly allow weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act.” 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was engaged in manufacturing of automobile and auto ancillary equipment. The assessee during the year under consideration had claimed expenditure on Research & Development

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

133 taxmann.com 43 (Bombay) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held that deduction under section 80-IA has to be computed unit-wise and not for business as a whole; therefore, assessee-company was to be allowed deduction under section 80-IA in respect of its two eligible units even if it had claimed loss under head of its total business

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

133 taxmann.com 43 (Bombay) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held that deduction under section 80-IA has to be computed unit-wise and not for business as a whole; therefore, assessee-company was to be allowed deduction under section 80-IA in respect of its two eligible units even if it had claimed loss under head of its total business

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

133 taxmann.com 43 (Bombay) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held that deduction under section 80-IA has to be computed unit-wise and not for business as a whole; therefore, assessee-company was to be allowed deduction under section 80-IA in respect of its two eligible units even if it had claimed loss under head of its total business

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

133 taxmann.com 43 (Bombay) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held that deduction under section 80-IA has to be computed unit-wise and not for business as a whole; therefore, assessee-company was to be allowed deduction under section 80-IA in respect of its two eligible units even if it had claimed loss under head of its total business

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

133 taxmann.com 43 (Bombay) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held that deduction under section 80-IA has to be computed unit-wise and not for business as a whole; therefore, assessee-company was to be allowed deduction under section 80-IA in respect of its two eligible units even if it had claimed loss under head of its total business

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

133 taxmann.com 43 (Bombay) wherein the jurisdictional High Court held that deduction under section 80-IA has to be computed unit-wise and not for business as a whole; therefore, assessee-company was to be allowed deduction under section 80-IA in respect of its two eligible units even if it had claimed loss under head of its total business