PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 263 of the Act. 35. The first issue raised before us is the application of matching principle in case the lease premium is to be treated as income of assessee in the year in which the assessee enters into agreement with the lessee. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has submitted written submissions in which

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 263 of the Act. 35. The first issue raised before us is the application of matching principle in case the lease premium is to be treated as income of assessee in the year in which the assessee enters into agreement with the lessee. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has submitted written submissions in which

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 263 of the Act. 35. The first issue raised before us is the application of matching principle in case the lease premium is to be treated as income of assessee in the year in which the assessee enters into agreement with the lessee. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has submitted written submissions in which

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 263 of the Act. 35. The first issue raised before us is the application of matching principle in case the lease premium is to be treated as income of assessee in the year in which the assessee enters into agreement with the lessee. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has submitted written submissions in which

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 263 of the Act. 35. The first issue raised before us is the application of matching principle in case the lease premium is to be treated as income of assessee in the year in which the assessee enters into agreement with the lessee. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has submitted written submissions in which

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 263 of the Act. 35. The first issue raised before us is the application of matching principle in case the lease premium is to be treated as income of assessee in the year in which the assessee enters into agreement with the lessee. In this regard, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee has submitted written submissions in which

SILVER OAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT-6, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

depreciation was made purely as a result of oversight, for which a bona fide explanation was offered by the appellant. This is not a case of misrepresentation of suppression of facts, as all the relevant and material facts were already on record. Therefore, the action of AO in levying penalty under section 270A (8) at the rate of 200

M/S GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

200 Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, Pune Pune-411001, Maharashtra PAN: AAACG6703F Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Hari Krishan Respondent by : Shri Amol Khairnar : Date of hearing 24.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 09.12.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2020-21 is directed against the order dated

MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

depreciation allowance. A copy of the approval has been placed at page 25A of the paper book, which is letter dated 07- 12-2010 issued by the DSIR recognizing the assessee’s in-house R&D unit. 6. The case of the ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee was not eligible for weighted deduction on any amount spent

DCIT CIRCLE 8 , PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

depreciation allowance. A copy of the approval has been placed at page 25A of the paper book, which is letter dated 07- 12-2010 issued by the DSIR recognizing the assessee’s in-house R&D unit. 6. The case of the ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee was not eligible for weighted deduction on any amount spent

DCIT,CIRCLE-8 , PUNE vs. MAHALE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

depreciation allowance. A copy of the approval has been placed at page 25A of the paper book, which is letter dated 07- 12-2010 issued by the DSIR recognizing the assessee’s in-house R&D unit. 6. The case of the ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee was not eligible for weighted deduction on any amount spent

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

200. Remaining three parties are the relatives of the assessee of which Mr. Bajirao Lahanu Shinde is Son-in-law, Mr. Samadhan Deore is Son and Ms. Vaishali Deore is Daughter-in-law and that the unsecured loans were received through Account payee cheque. Ld. 7 Vatsalabai Karbhari Deore Counsel for the assessee took us through the questionnaire issued

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

200 θερ The above Research & Development facility is approved for the purpose of section 35(2AB) from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2009, subject to the conditions underlined therein. Place: New Delhi Date: 11 March 2008 (R.R. ABHYANKAR) Scientist 'G' (For and on behalf of Secretary, DSIR) Order No: TU/IV-15(331)/2007 File No: TU/IV-15(331)/35(2AB)/3CM/243/2008 Copy

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

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

200% of the tax of Rs.13,07,784/- thereby calculating the penalty at Rs.26,15,568/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A), who affirmed the order of the AO observing that the assessee has 4 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited failed to comply to the show cause notice issued by him. Now the assessee is in appeal before this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation on assets, the assessee could not claim scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on the said expenditure of ₹ 2.01 crores. However, expenses incurred on purchase of fans and motor vehicles totaling ₹ 8,09,016/- were held to be allowed under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The CIT(A) further directed the revenue

COPPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation on assets, the assessee could not claim scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on the said expenditure of ₹ 2.01 crores. However, expenses incurred on purchase of fans and motor vehicles totaling ₹ 8,09,016/- were held to be allowed under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The CIT(A) further directed the revenue

MAHLE BEHR INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

200% approved by DSIR). Therefore, the assessee's claim of deauction u/s 35(2AB) was restricted to Rs.5 16 Crores, as against Rs.15.006 Crores claimed by it and Rs.11.626 Crores allowed by the AO. Accordingly, there was an enhancement of Rs 6.466 Crores (Rs 11.626 Crores Rs.5.16 Crores). The alternative plea of the assessee to be allowed depreciation