ACIT,CIR.-1,, AURANGABAD vs. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2011 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad-431 201 Pan :Aaecs3749M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Depreciation cannot be computed as per American rules applicable to the parent company. Therefore, Mr. Ostwal was correct in adjusting margin of profit of the taxpayer.” Thus, the Hon‟ble ITAT, Pune has also allowed adjustments made by the appellant to its profitability to account for difference and ensure comparability of the entities being compared. 10.6 The appellant has contended

SAKAL PAPER LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.347 & 348/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sakal Papers Ltd., ………. अपीलाथ" / 595, Budhwar Peth, Appellant Pune – 411 002. Pan : Aaccs7605Q. बनाम V/S

156/-. The action being bad in law it is submitted that that the penalty be deleted.” 3.2. The ground raised by the Revenue in appeal No.397/PUN/2015 reads as under : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied

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.27,20,59,980/- not made by the assessee in its original return as well as revised return of income ?‖ 37. Ground of appeal no.1 challenges the correctness of decision of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the performance guarantee is not an international transaction. The relevant findings

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.27,20,59,980/- not made by the assessee in its original return as well as revised return of income ?‖ 37. Ground of appeal no.1 challenges the correctness of decision of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the performance guarantee is not an international transaction. The relevant findings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

depreciation in the fight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not concerned with the same. 45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

depreciation in the fight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not concerned with the same. 45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

ASHIRWAD CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE, PUNE

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

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed:] Hence it cannot be said that the there has been change of opinion in respect of the decision in respect of re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The appellant has not brought on record any evidence to support his contentions in respect

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

depreciation of assets used by Goodyear, any fee required to obtain the accountants’ certificate referred to in section 8.2” Clause 3 of the Agreement deals with allocation of costs. Sub-clause (a) states that the assessee “will only receive, and be obligated to pay for, those services that pertain to its business and are provided by Goodyear. Clause

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURNAGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

depreciation of assets used by Goodyear, any fee required to obtain the accountants’ certificate referred to in section 8.2” Clause 3 of the Agreement deals with allocation of costs. Sub-clause (a) states that the assessee “will only receive, and be obligated to pay for, those services that pertain to its business and are provided by Goodyear. Clause

DEVI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2406/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2012-2013 Devi Construction Company 1161/10, Devi Niwas, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411005. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aaafd8922A बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle 2, Pune द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Extant Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] All Dt. 10/08/017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Dove Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 30/03/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2012-13. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 16

depreciation to 10% as against 80% inadvertently allowed in the assessment. ITAT-Pune Page 8 of 16 Devi Construction Company ITA Nos. 2406/PUN/2017 AY: 2012-13 6.3 Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) [Ground number 5 and its counter parts] i. In the course of assessment proceeding the Ld. AO observed that, the appellant made huge investment in land

HUECO ELECTRONICS (I) PVT.LTD,(NOW KNOWN AS HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS PUNE (I) PVT.LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.02/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 43A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, the same cannot be applied in the present case. In Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC), Hon. Supreme Court decided the issue in clear terms holding that “the law may, therefore, now be taken to be well settled that where the profit or loss arises to an assessee

M/S KARIA BUILDERS ,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Karia Builders Ito, Ward 14(3), Pune 402, Konark Indrayu, Kondhwa, Vs. Pune – 411048 Pan: Aadfk5220B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 O R D E R

156 (P&H HC)] ii) Ravi Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. ACIT [ITA No. 4140/Mumbai/2023] dated 28.06.2024 iii) Vijayaben G. Zalavadia v. JCIT [ITA No.458 463/Ahd/2020] dated 11.05.2022 iv) Pravin Nilkanth Barode v. ΙΠΟ [ΙΤΑ No. 371/Nagpur/2024] dated 20.12.2024 v) Shri Umakant Sharma v. JCIT [ITA No. 364/Indore/2022] dated 19.07.2023 vi) CIT v. Standard Brands

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN, KOLHAPUR vs. KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LIMITED, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.300/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Acit, Kolhapur Vs. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Limited, B-1, Midc, Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur – 416234 Maharashtra Pan : Aaaak0230D Appellant Respondent

depreciation in accordance with law. Needless to mention that ld. JAO shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 5 Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. 9. Ground No.3 raised by the Revenue reads as under : “3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Id.CIT

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]

Depreciation and B Amortisation – 537,805,260 2,781,271 138,280 3,820,041 30,431,612 37,171,204 1,607,101 499,026,955 2.6A reworked B.2 Sub total Indirect 5,185,975,966 11,073,027 550,532 15,208,666 121,156,878 147,989,103 12,437,115 5,052,549,778 expenditure

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

156/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of unproved agriculture income. 4. Additional Ground of appeal No. 3 sought to be raised. By this ground of appeal the appellant is challenging the addition of Rs.1,53,655/- made by the learned Assessing Officer on the ground of disallowance of excess claim of depreciation. 5. Additional Ground of appeal

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

156/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of unproved agriculture income. 4. Additional Ground of appeal No. 3 sought to be raised. By this ground of appeal the appellant is challenging the addition of Rs.1,53,655/- made by the learned Assessing Officer on the ground of disallowance of excess claim of depreciation. 5. Additional Ground of appeal

SHRI P.M. CHORDIA,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07

156/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of unproved agriculture income. 4. Additional Ground of appeal No. 3 sought to be raised. By this ground of appeal the appellant is challenging the addition of Rs.1,53,655/- made by the learned Assessing Officer on the ground of disallowance of excess claim of depreciation. 5. Additional Ground of appeal

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

section 43B of the Act. He similarly noted that the assessee had also made payment of Rs.6.40 crores to LIC on account of employees’ gratuity fund from the date of its incorporation till 31.03.2003 whereas the expenses for the year was only Rs.1.10 crores. Thus the assessee has made additional claim of Rs.5.30crores. According to the Assessing Officer since