INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

139, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, to provide that, in a situation which may fall under Section 153C insofar as assessment of income of any other person is concerned, the Assessing Officer shall proceed against such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of other persons in accordance with

ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

139 or in\nresponse to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section\n148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his\nassessment, for that assessment year:\nProvided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall\napply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including\nfinancial interest

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

depreciation on the same will also be allowed. 17. So far as the issue of contribution to approved superannuation fund is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions held that deduction in respect of contribution made to approved superannuation fund within limit prescribed will be wholly allowed in assessment year relating to previous year in which payment

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

139, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, to provide that, in a situation which may fall under Section 153C insofar as assessment of income of any other person is concerned, the Assessing Officer shall proceed against such other person and issue notice and assess or reassess the income of other persons in accordance with

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

depreciation under the provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (b), the "business of manufacture or production of any article or thing" shall include the business of generation of electricity. (3) The loss referred to in sub-clause

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

139(1) showing positive income, loss determined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings on assessment in the assessment order can be carried forward and set off against the subsequent profits. 56. In the light of above legal position, it cannot be said that the conditions prescribed u/s 80 were present so as to disentitle the assessee

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

139(1) showing positive income, loss determined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings on assessment in the assessment order can be carried forward and set off against the subsequent profits. 56. In the light of above legal position, it cannot be said that the conditions prescribed u/s 80 were present so as to disentitle the assessee

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

139(1) only. Ex consequenti, the contention that since section 80P is not covered under section 80AC, the deduction under this section becomes automatically allowable without adhering to the requirement of section 80A(5), is bereft of force and hence dismissed. ITA Nos.2432and 2433 /PUN/2024 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 10. Now I advert to the requirements of section

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

139(1) only. Ex consequenti, the contention that since section 80P is not covered under section 80AC, the deduction under this section becomes automatically allowable without adhering to the requirement of section 80A(5), is bereft of force and hence dismissed. ITA Nos.2432and 2433 /PUN/2024 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit 10. Now I advert to the requirements of section

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

139(1) on 12/03/2022 for AY 2021-22 moreover the fact that, the appellant's case of delay condonation with respect to form 10IC falls under the circular no 19/2023 issued by CBDT. Further, the learned NFAC CIT(A) also erred in asking the appellant to get the delay condoned from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax instead

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

139(1) of the Act. Thus, for the period anterior to the amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2020, the only requirement was to furnish the audit report in the prescribed form along with the return of income. Such return of income may be u/s.139(1) or u/s.139(5). Since the assessee claimed deduction by filing the revised return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

139(1) of the Act. Thus, for the period anterior to the amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2020, the only requirement was to furnish the audit report in the prescribed form along with the return of income. Such return of income may be u/s.139(1) or u/s.139(5). Since the assessee claimed deduction by filing the revised return

ROXILER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD5(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

depreciation. In these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this 6 Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.), we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 2. We concur with the aforesaid view of the High Court