A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

198 & 288 ITR (AT) 207). The decision of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of G K N Driveshafts was also discussed elaborately therein. The observations of Honourable ITAT are reproduced as under: "To repeatedly insist that the AO should formally communicate the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, even all the while being aware of such reasons, is nothing

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

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45.\nFurther, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

HOTEL AYODHYA,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

198-E, Tararani Chowk, Kawala Naka, Tararani Chowk, Kolhapur- 416003. PAN : AAAFH5549M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue by : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date of hearing : 19.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM: This appeal filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Hyderabad

SHANKAR NAGAPPA JADAGOUDA,KOLHAPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

SHRI SHANTINATH BHAGWAN JAIN SHWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK SANGH,PUNE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

M/S. SHI vs. HAKTI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,OSMANABADVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, NANDED

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shivshakti Shetkari Vs. Dcit, Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Circle-3, Limited, Nanded Washi Dist., Osmanabad. Pan : Aacts1082Q Appellant Respondent

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

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

198 to 204 Q. No. 12/201 & Kokani recorded in the course of 202 search action u/s 132(4) on 08.09.2015 2 Statement of Mr. Fakruddin 205 to 207 Q. No. 4 to 8 Kokani recorded issued u/s. 131 /205 & 206 of the IT Act, 1961 on 23.10.2015 3 Statement of Shri. Shashikant 208 to 211 Q. No. 9 to Shivchand

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

198 incurred during the year were held to be capital in nature, the Appellant prays for allowance of the consequential depreciation on the same, in the subsequent years, including AY 2012-13.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) has observed that “the purpose of the assessment proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

198 incurred during the year were held to be capital in nature, the Appellant prays for allowance of the consequential depreciation on the same, in the subsequent years, including AY 2012-13.” 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) has observed that “the purpose of the assessment proceedings

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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. 1356/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Atlas Copco (India) Limited Sevanagar, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012. Pan : Aaaca4074D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

198/- towards Software development expenses. The Assessing Officer treated the same as capital in A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 nature. After allowing depreciation of Rs.4,68,039/- @30% (half of 60%), the Assessing Officer made net addition of Rs.10,92,139/-. When the matter came up before the Tribunal for consideration, the assessee did not press this ground. Ex consequenti

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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. 1356/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Atlas Copco (India) Limited Sevanagar, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012. Pan : Aaaca4074D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

198/- towards Software development expenses. The Assessing Officer treated the same as capital in A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 nature. After allowing depreciation of Rs.4,68,039/- @30% (half of 60%), the Assessing Officer made net addition of Rs.10,92,139/-. When the matter came up before the Tribunal for consideration, the assessee did not press this ground. Ex consequenti

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

198 ITR 297 (SC), we are not in agreement with the contention of the Ld. DR that in the reassessment proceedings under section 148, no deduction can be allowed in respect of the income which has escaped assessment. In reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions

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

198 ITR 297 (SC), we are not in agreement with the contention of the Ld. DR that in the reassessment proceedings under section 148, no deduction can be allowed in respect of the income which has escaped assessment. In reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions

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

198 ITR 297 (SC), we are not in agreement with the contention of the Ld. DR that in the reassessment proceedings under section 148, no deduction can be allowed in respect of the income which has escaped assessment. In reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions

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

198 ITR 297 (SC), we are not in agreement with the contention of the Ld. DR that in the reassessment proceedings under section 148, no deduction can be allowed in respect of the income which has escaped assessment. In reassessment proceedings even the income which has escaped assessment has to be computed in accordance with the provisions