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 -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

133 (Guj.) and connected matters, a Division Bench of this Court had touched on the aspect of what can be termed as scientific research. In the context, certain observations made by the Bench may be of some relevance. "25. It can thus be seen that the term scientific research in the context of the deduction allowable under section

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

133 (Pune - Trib.) [26-12-2024] 5 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited 6. Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar Vs. (ITO ITA Nos. 2131 & 2132/PUN/2024) [18-02-2025] 7. Schneider Electric Southeast Asia (11Q) Pte. Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 145 taxmann.com 665 (Delhi HC) [28-03-2022) 6. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE vs. BHIKSHU GRANIMART, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 7. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted all the additions made by the Assessing Officer. So far as the addition of Rs.1 crore made by the Assessing Officer is concerned, he deleted the same by observing as under: 5 “6.1 On perusal of the submission made by the appellant

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

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

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

depreciation from earlier years against the income so assessed. 3. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee trust is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 vide No.E1150, Pune dated 13-10-1987. The assessee is registered u/s.12A of the Act vide registration No.4597 dated 21-06-1989. The assessee trust was formed with various aims

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

133(6) on test check basis. Inspite of these, the Hon'ble Court held that it was inadequate inquiry - Lack of requisite inquiry - and therefore action u/s 263 was valid. Recently, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay had upheld action u/ s 263 in the case of CIT, Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (85 taxmann.com 10) (Date of order

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

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

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

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

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

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

Depreciation claim 3. Deduction and deposit of TDS 4. Deduction under Chapter VIA 5. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income 6. Tax deduction, TDS deposit and TDS statement filing 7. Deduction/Exemption u/s 10A/10AA 8. Income from house property 9. Reduction in profit due to ICDS 10. International transaction(s) 11. Loss from currency fluctuations 03. The assessment was completed

NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

depreciation cannot be sustained in view of the factual and legal position discussed as above. We therefore are of the view that CIT (A) was fully justified in deleting the addition made by the AO in this regard. Order of CIT (A) does not call for any interference.” 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision on the same parity of reasoning