ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. R.J. BIOTECH LTD,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

depreciation chart regarding addition in machinery and plant and submits that farmer made addition only in tools to an extent of Rs.1,689/-. The said little expenditure indicates that these additional tools are not related to production of seeds by the farmer. The said little expenditure, he vehemently argued, is not sufficient for purchase of equipment such as sprinklers

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. R.J. BIOTECH LTD,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

depreciation chart regarding addition in machinery and plant and submits that farmer made addition only in tools to an extent of Rs.1,689/-. The said little expenditure indicates that these additional tools are not related to production of seeds by the farmer. The said little expenditure, he vehemently argued, is not sufficient for purchase of equipment such as sprinklers

AKSHAY NITIN MALU,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

section does not provide for withdrawal of exercised option for the same year, it only provides for withdrawal of the option only for the year subsequent to the year of exercising of the option. He accordingly upheld the action of the CPC in making an adjustment of Rs.71,31,899/- by denying the claim of additional depreciation u/s 32(1A

BUILT UP,PUNE vs. ADIT, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2019-20 Built Up Adit, Cpc, Bangalore 1, Samda Apartment, Vs. Dr Ketkar Margs, Ghodke Chowk, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aaefb6432D (Appellant) (Respondent)

1a) dated 5 12.12.2019 and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 29.05.2020 disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act on the ground that Form No.10CCB was not filed along with the return or was filed beyond the due date for filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act where the due date

DASHRATH KONDIBA BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

1A), (1B), (2), (2A) and (4) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly:] Thus, as per above proviso, the time available

PRAKASH DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

1A), (1B), (2), (2A) and (4) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly:] Thus, as per above proviso, the time available

VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

1A), (1B), (2), (2A) and (4) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly:] Thus, as per above proviso, the time available

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE vs. VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

1A), (1B), (2), (2A) and (4) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly:] Thus, as per above proviso, the time available

DCIT, PUNE vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act and stamp duty for the same was paid appropriately. ii) Pending the registration of the property in the name of the company the permissions were issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation on 26 November 2011 (refer page no. 54 and 55 of the submission) in the name of erstwhile owner being M/s Jalan

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. VISTEON ENGG. CENTRE (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.625/Pun/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

depreciation etc. commencing from the year 2001-02 on completion of the period of tax holiday also virtually works as a deduction which has to be worked out at a future point of time, namely, after the expiry of period of tax holiday. The absence of any reference to deduction under Section 10A in Chapter

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. EPYGEN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

1A) x x x x x x (2) For the purposes of clause (iv) of sub-section (1),— 8 ITA.No.2719/PUN./2024 (Epygen Biotech Pvt. Ltd.) (i) in a case where such capital expenditure is incurred before the 1st day of April, 1967, one-fifth of the capital expenditure incurred in any previous year shall be deducted for that previous

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

depreciation. Since there being no objection\nfrom the side of ld. DR we restore the issues raised in\nGrounds of appeal No.18, 19 and 20 regarding claim of set off\nof off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed\ndepreciation to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer\nbefore whom assessee shall furnish necessary details and\nproof of brought forward

ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION),, PUNE

In the result, this appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.466/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Association Of Consulting Civil The Commissioner Of Income Engineers, Vs Tax, Exemption, Pune. Sthapathya Bhavan, Damani Complex, Datta Chowk, Solapur – 413 007. Pan: Aacaa 6603 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Depreciation - By Meeting sponsorship a/c 176,000.00 By booklet spons A/c 50,500.00 To Surplus Carried over to Balance Sheet By Advt. & Meeting spon 465,590.00 1,128,391.00 A/c 2,604,338.00 By stall rent 3,449,863.00 3,449,863.00 Thus, it is observed: F.Y Total Income Amount Spend on Surplus % Objects

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. ASHISH JUGALKISHOR BHALA, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

depreciation. Consequently, this element to determine the valuation of the unquoted equity shares is to be considered in a broader way. 5.2.6 Further while determining the deeming income under the Income Tax Act, various concepts are there such as Safe Harbor Rule, Section 50C etc for dealing with the practical difficulties and uncertainties. However, the section 50CA is silent

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

1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer, after adding the TP adjustment of Rs.3,07,80,000/- and the disallowance of health and education cess at Rs.24,70,183/- determined the total income at Rs.29,53,41,873/-. 3. Before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the assessee apart from challenging

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation is of Rs.31,61,21,110/-. It was submitted that the net profit earned on derivative transactions referred to in the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been properly accounted for in the Profit and Loss Account and there is no attempt to avoid income tax. It was accordingly requested to drop the proceedings initiated

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation is of Rs.31,61,21,110/-. It was submitted that the net profit earned on derivative transactions referred to in the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been properly accounted for in the Profit and Loss Account and there is no attempt to avoid income tax. It was accordingly requested to drop the proceedings initiated