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

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

16. In the above finding of this Tribunal, it has been clearly held that the amount of subsidy is not to be deducted from the actual cost u/s.43(1) of the Act for the purpose of calculation of depreciation and the provisions of Explanation 10 to section

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

16. In the above finding of this Tribunal, it has been clearly held that the amount of subsidy is not to be deducted from the actual cost u/s.43(1) of the Act for the purpose of calculation of depreciation and the provisions of Explanation 10 to section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

16. In the above finding of this Tribunal, it has been clearly held that the amount of subsidy is not to be deducted from the actual cost u/s.43(1) of the Act for the purpose of calculation of depreciation and the provisions of Explanation 10 to section

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

16. In the above finding of this Tribunal, it has been clearly held that the amount of subsidy is not to be deducted from the actual cost u/s.43(1) of the Act for the purpose of calculation of depreciation and the provisions of Explanation 10 to section

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

16. In the above finding of this Tribunal, it has been clearly held that the amount of subsidy is not to be deducted from the actual cost u/s.43(1) of the Act for the purpose of calculation of depreciation and the provisions of Explanation 10 to section

COVENTYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include the present situation." 5. No question of law in this respect therefore arises.” 16. We further find that on the issue of Non compete fee, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by following the decision

COVENTYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include the present situation." 5. No question of law in this respect therefore arises.” 16. We further find that on the issue of Non compete fee, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by following the decision

JAYNT VASUDEO ARADHYE,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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.683/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Villa No.25, Indradhanu, Laxmi Peth, Vishnu Mill Compound, Solapur- 413001. Pan : Aappa8903M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2022-23 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. The Cpc Was Not Correct Both Factually & Legally In Not Considering The Claim Of Brought Forwarded Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs 27,78,028/-. 11. Section 143(1) As It Stands On The Statute Books As On Today, Does Not Permit Either Cpc Or The Ao To Make Such Adjustments As They Are Beyond The Scope Of The Said Section.

16 or clause (b) of section 24 (in respect of the property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 23) or clause (iia) of sub- section (1) of section 32 or section 32AD or section 33AB or section 33ABA or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iia) or sub- clause (iii) of sub-section (1) or sub- section

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.685/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

16,894/- under section 14A of the Act.” 7. We have perused the case records and given considerable thought to the judicial pronouncement placed before us. We find that while adjudicating this issue, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision in assessee‟s own cases in ITA No.2417/PUN/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09 & in ITA No.309/PUN/2014

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 32(1) of the Act. The Ld. AO\ncompleted the assessment by passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of\nthe Act dated 20.12.2018 disallowing the claim of depreciation of Rs.\n14,98,78,251/- on the Goodwill of Rs.59,95,13,004/-.\n4.\nAggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)\nagainst the said disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

depreciation and the deduction under section 80IA was claimed against the income declared by the assessee from Wind Mill activity. The assessee has furnished on record the copies of the audited balance sheet, profit and loss account and the return of income along with computation of income for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and claim of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

depreciation and the deduction under section 80IA was claimed against the income declared by the assessee from Wind Mill activity. The assessee has furnished on record the copies of the audited balance sheet, profit and loss account and the return of income along with computation of income for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and claim of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

depreciation and the deduction under section 80IA was claimed against the income declared by the assessee from Wind Mill activity. The assessee has furnished on record the copies of the audited balance sheet, profit and loss account and the return of income along with computation of income for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and claim of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

depreciation and the deduction under section 80IA was claimed against the income declared by the assessee from Wind Mill activity. The assessee has furnished on record the copies of the audited balance sheet, profit and loss account and the return of income along with computation of income for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 and claim of the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation / brought forward business loss be upheld. 3. Ground No. 3 On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 35,16,386/- under section

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation / brought forward business loss be upheld. 3. Ground No. 3 On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 35,16,386/- under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. PARAKH AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 32(1)(iia) for additional depreciation is that the assessee should be engaged in manufacturing activity. This fact has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR pointed that the Revenue is in appeal for assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11only as in the intervening A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2010-11 assessment years. The Department could