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

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

section 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision

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

section 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision

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

section 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision

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

section 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision

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

section 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD vs. MAHARASHTRA WATER CONSERVATION CORPORATION,, AURANGBAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2299/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 18 would fall within the ambit of activities carried out by the assessee and income earned from such activities would be ‘business income’ of the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the income earned by assessee from fisheries, howsoever, small it may be, is ‘business income’ of the assessee. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised in appeals by Revenue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD vs. MAHARASHTRA WATER CONSERVATION CORPORATION,, AURANGABAD

Accordingly, the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is upheld and ground No. 2 raised in appeals by Revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 883 & 1568/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

section 18 would fall within the ambit of activities carried out by the assessee and income earned from such activities would be ‘business income’ of the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the income earned by A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 assessee from fisheries, howsoever, small it may be, is ‘business income’ of the assessee. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAHARASHTRA WATER CONSERVATION CORPORATION,, AURANGABAD

Accordingly, the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is upheld and ground No. 2 raised in appeals by Revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 883 & 1568/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

section 18 would fall within the ambit of activities carried out by the assessee and income earned from such activities would be ‘business income’ of the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the income earned by A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 assessee from fisheries, howsoever, small it may be, is ‘business income’ of the assessee. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. MAHARASHTRA WATER CONSERVATION CORPORATION,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1689/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Aurangabad. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Maharashtra Water Conservation Corporation, Fazalpura, Nr. Collector Office, Aurangabad-431 001. Pan : Aamfm1607K ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 18 would fall within the ambit of activities carried out by the assessee and income earned from such activities would be ‘business income’ of the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the income earned by assessee from fisheries, howsoever, small it may be, is ‘business income’ of the assessee. Accordingly, ground No. 1 raised in appeals by Revenue

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. We further find that in the case of CIT Vs. MIS Bharti Teletech Ltd. (supra), where the assessee had paid to the transferor the amount who owned commercial rights towards network and facilities, the Hon‟ble High Court held that it to be „business or commercial rights‟ which were similar to those enumerated as intangible assets which would

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. We further find that in the case of CIT Vs. MIS Bharti Teletech Ltd. (supra), where the assessee had paid to the transferor the amount who owned commercial rights towards network and facilities, the Hon‟ble High Court held that it to be „business or commercial rights‟ which were similar to those enumerated as intangible assets which would

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

section 80IA(4) of the Act as there was unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.27,18,071/-. The Assessing Officer in view

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

section 80IA(4) of the Act as there was unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.27,18,071/-. The Assessing Officer in view

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

section 80IA(4) of the Act as there was unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.27,18,071/-. The Assessing Officer in view

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

section 80IA(4) of the Act as there was unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.27,18,071/-. The Assessing Officer in view

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 43(6) of the IT Act 1961\nestablishes that the depreciation on goodwill as a result of amalgamation is\nnot allowable.\nResultantly, the claims made by the appellant in support of this ground do\nnot have any merit. Therefore, the addition made by assessing officer on\naccount of disallowance of claim of depreciation on goodwill as a result

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

18, Para 6 onwards of his order and final findings are at Page 25, Para 6.3 onwards wherein the Assessing Officer disallowed proportionate weighted deduction claimed u/s.35(2AB) of the Act at Rs.9.34 Crore by the assessee company and added back the same to the total income of the assessee company. The Assessing 4 A.Y.2012-13 Officer while doing