BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

133(6) of the Act which was issued on the basis of audit objections and such letter was issued after obtaining the approval of the PCIT-2. It is his submission that since the Assessing Officer has raised the queries during assessment proceedings which were answered and responded by the assessee, therefore, it cannot be said that no mind

NIHILENT TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

depreciation, whichever is lower.‖ 8. We find that the decision rendered by AAR in the case of Rastriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra) and the order of Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. (supra) are unanimous in the manner of computation of book profits, as provided in clause (iii) to Explanation 1 of section 115JB

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

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

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

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

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

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

depreciation etc Step 3: Subtract capital expenditures. Step 4: Subtract Increases in working capital. Step 5: Take into account the effect of changes in Debts. Step 6: Discount the FCFF for each year at the cost of capital. Step 7: Add the terminal value accruing in the final year. Step 8: Arrive at the value of Equity by subtracting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. AMBARWADIKAR & COMPANY,, AURANGABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 2038 and 2039/PUN/2014 filed by the

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.2038 & 2039/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

depreciation on building which has not been contested by the appellant in appeal. Therefore the A.O. is directed to assess the income of the appellant for A.Y. 2011-12 at Rs.2,52,84,731/-.” 5. From the above, the summary of the decision of CIT(A) includes : (1) the estimation of profits @13% of the business receipts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. AMBARWADIKAR & COMPANY,, AURANGABAD

In the result, ITA Nos. 2038 and 2039/PUN/2014 filed by the

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.2038 & 2039/Pun/2014 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष"

depreciation on building which has not been contested by the appellant in appeal. Therefore the A.O. is directed to assess the income of the appellant for A.Y. 2011-12 at Rs.2,52,84,731/-.” 5. From the above, the summary of the decision of CIT(A) includes : (1) the estimation of profits @13% of the business receipts

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