ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE vs. THE SHETKARI SHIKSHAN MANDAL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation on such assets during earlier assessment years, which indicated to the Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed exemption in respect of acquisition of capital asset as per the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act. Since the assessee had already availed the exemption towards acquisition of capital assets which was acquired from loan fund, the application

OLIVE TREE TRADING PVT LTD,PUNE vs. ITO, CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

section 69C of the IT Act and thereby erred in disallowing depreciation amounting to Rs. 66,39,484/- 2 ITA No.899/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 4. Without prejudice to Ground no 3, the Ld. CIT failed to appreciate the nature of expenses incurred by the assessee which is alternatively treated as revenue expenses and erred in confirming the order

PRODAIR AIR PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.495/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Prodair Air Products India The Assistant Private Limited, V Commissioner Of 602 Pentagon 5, Magarpatta S Income Tax, Circle-4, City, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. Pune. Pan: Aafcp0045E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Chandni Shah & Ridhi Maru – Ar Revenue By Shri Subhakant Sahu – Irs, Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

Depreciation has also grown almost 12 times. Any Financial Corporations/Banks considers projected Future Revenue and Projected Future Profit of the company before deciding the rate of interest to be charged on the Loan. In this case we have already analysed that the Assessee’s Revenue has increased 3.5 times and its Phase 2 was to commence .There are no earlier

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

144(7) of the Act. The appellant is aggrieved that the opportunity of being heard • was not provided by the Ld. DRP with the reference to the remand report and the same is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 1440(11) and Section 144C(6)(C) of the Act. The grounds of appeal mentioned below are without prejudice

RAJDEEP BUILDCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation earlier not claimed in original return of income. 17. Thus, the law is clear that for an unabated assessment year, completed assessment attains finality which cannot be disturbed except on the basis of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search action. In other words, an assessee cannot make fresh claims in the returns filed u/s 1534, particularly

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation earlier not claimed in original return of income. 17. Thus, the law is clear that for an unabated assessment year, completed assessment attains finality which cannot be disturbed except on the basis of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search action. In other words, an assessee cannot make fresh claims in the returns filed u/s 1534, particularly

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation earlier not claimed in original return of income. 17. Thus, the law is clear that for an unabated assessment year, completed assessment attains finality which cannot be disturbed except on the basis of any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search action. In other words, an assessee cannot make fresh claims in the returns filed u/s 1534, particularly

RAJA BASHUMIYA MANIYAR,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

144\nr.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.12.2016. The\nAssessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :\nITA No.455/PUN/2025 [A]\n“1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]\nerred in not appreciating the fact that the reassessment proceeding\ninitiated U/Sec. 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act by the Ld.AO is without\njurisdiction and void

ANANDA GORAKHANATH PAWAR,SATARA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 3, SATARA, SATARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1796/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ananda Gorakhanath Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. At Post Ambawade, Khatav, Satara- 415506. Pan : Blhpp6081R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri R. C. Doshi : Revenue By : Shri Milind Debaje Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 26 Days On Grounds Of Period Of Limitation, Notwithstanding The Fact That Appellant Has Submitted The Application & Explained The Reasons For Delay.

144 of ITA, 1961 are bad in law, illegal and not tenable. Appellant prays your Honour to quash the assessment proceedings. d) The Learned Assessing Officer supplied only the information and not the material received by him and relied upon by him as required under the provisions of IT Act, 1961. e) The approval accorded is mechanical one and without

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 144 were not invoked, which would have been the case had there been any non-compliance. 7.2 The A.O. passed assessment order on 04.06.2021 u/s 143 (3) of the Act, accepting the returned income, except 11 ITA.No.1375/PUN./2024 (Tapadiya Construction Ltd.) for making a petty disallowance of Rs. 72,665/- out of the depreciation

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

144(3). This order of assessment was assailed by the respondents/assessee before the CIT (A) and has succeeded before the CIT (A), on the ground that the Impugned assessment order was passed against a non-existent entity. The assessee contended that the proceedings stood squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALNA CIRCLE,, JALNA vs. SANJAY DEVENDRAPARSAD RAI,, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.801/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sanjay Devendraprasad Rai, Income Tax, Jalna Circle, Vs Prop. Shivshakti Services, 343, Jalna. Manik Nagar, Lakkadkot, Jalna – 431 203. Pan: Akqpr 3680 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Cross Objection No.17/Pun/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.801/Pun/2018) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sanjay Devendraprasad Rai, The Asst. Commissioner Of Prop. Shivshakti Services, 343, Vs Income Tax, Jalna Circle, Manik Nagar, Lakkadkot, Jalna. Jalna – 431 203. Pan: Akqpr 3680 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Dr.Prayag Jha & Shri Prateek Jha – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Appeal Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-1,[Ld.Cit(A)], Pune Dated 05.02.2018 For

section 144 dated 31.12.2016. Also, the assessee is before us as a Cross-Objector for the aforementioned year. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : “i) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in passing the order. ii) The Ld CIT(A)-1,Aurangabad erred in not appreciation the fact that cash deposited in bank

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALNA vs. M/S. BHADRAMARUTI CONCOST PVT. LTD.,, JALNA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 144 was not all justified. Accordingly the impugned additions were deleted. 6 M/s.Bhadramaruti Concost P.Ltd 3. The Mr.Walimbe quotes hon’ble apex court’s decision in Civil Appeal No. 373/2007 decided on 31.01.2007 M/s. Melton India India Vs. Commissioner Trade Tax, U.P. as well as (2014) 363 ITR 467 (Guj.) Ramjoti industries Vs. Joint CIT that on 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

depreciation of Rs.27.20 crores on the Coating Line Machine leased to the Bilcare Singapore Pte Ltd.. The factual background leading to the issue is asunder :- The assessee company had set-up wholly owned foreign subsidiary company in Singapore in the year 2002-03, namely, Bilcare Singapore Pte Ltd. i.e. BSPL. The said subsidiary company in turned

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

depreciation of Rs.27.20 crores on the Coating Line Machine leased to the Bilcare Singapore Pte Ltd.. The factual background leading to the issue is asunder :- The assessee company had set-up wholly owned foreign subsidiary company in Singapore in the year 2002-03, namely, Bilcare Singapore Pte Ltd. i.e. BSPL. The said subsidiary company in turned

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 -1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. CUMMINS SALES & SERVICES (I),LTD,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS CUMMINS DIESELS SALES & SERVICE LTD,), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed

depreciation. This decision supports the view which we have taken.” 15. We have gone through the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of section 72A. We are unable to discern any difference in the object behind the enactment of provisions of sub-section (1) of section 72A governs the scheme of amalgamation, the provisions of sub-section

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 19.03.2022 thereby making an addition of Rs.60,76,654/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the above addition made by the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee

NATHARAM PANAJI CHOUDHARY,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dated 19.03.2022 thereby making an addition of Rs.60,76,654/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the above addition made by the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee