M/S. VARDHAN NUTRITIONS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Vardhan Nutritions & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.535/2, Ershimgathi Road, Old Thana Naka Road, Thana Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Panvel, Dist. Raigad. …. Pan: Aabcv9194J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Panvel

depreciable assets, yet that restriction was limited to the computation of capital gains and not the exemption provisions. Thus, the Hon’ble High Court held that exemption under section 54E cannot be denied to the assessee on account of the fiction created in section 50. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble High Court from para 22

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

depreciation" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 72A.” 6. Now before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in compliance to section 115BAB(7) assessee has first time opted for this concessional rate of tax u/s.115BAB of the Act in the return filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE-2,, NASHIK vs. SMT. CHHAYA VALMIK NIKHADE,LATE SHRI VALMIK R. NIKHADE, , NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

depreciation on flat at Mumbai used for business purpose. 3 6 On the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained advance received against land from Shri Prashant Hire. 7 On the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred

LATE SHRI WALMIK RAGHUNATH NIKHADE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

depreciation on flat at Mumbai used for business purpose. 3 6 On the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained advance received against land from Shri Prashant Hire. 7 On the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred

KOLHAPUUR ZILLA SAH DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.616 To 618/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 Kolhapur Zilla Sah Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., B-1, Midc, Gokul Shiraon, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur …. Pan: Aaaak0230D Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Kolhapur

22,74,673/-. The said depreciation was allowed to the assessee while completing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide

KOLHAPUUR ZILLA SAH DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.616 To 618/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 Kolhapur Zilla Sah Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., B-1, Midc, Gokul Shiraon, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur …. Pan: Aaaak0230D Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Kolhapur

22,74,673/-. The said depreciation was allowed to the assessee while completing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide

KOLHAPUUR ZILLA SAH DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.616 To 618/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 Kolhapur Zilla Sah Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., B-1, Midc, Gokul Shiraon, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur …. Pan: Aaaak0230D Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Kolhapur

22,74,673/-. The said depreciation was allowed to the assessee while completing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide

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

22 to 25/PUN/2018 under section 80IA(4) of the Act as there was unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.27,18,071/-. The Assessing

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

22 to 25/PUN/2018 under section 80IA(4) of the Act as there was unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.27,18,071/-. The Assessing

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

22 to 25/PUN/2018 under section 80IA(4) of the Act as there was unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.27,18,071/-. The Assessing

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

22 to 25/PUN/2018 under section 80IA(4) of the Act as there was unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.27,18,071/-. The Assessing

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

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

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 of the High Court. In that view, this question also

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

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 of the High Court. In that view, this question also

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

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 of the High Court. In that view, this question also

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

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 of the High Court. In that view, this question also

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

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 of the High Court. In that view, this question also

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

depreciation\nshould not exceed the threshold provided in the said proviso. We find\nthat the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Padmini Products (P.) Ltd. v.\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12(2), Bengaluru [2020]\n121 taxmann.com 237/277 Taxman 22 (Karnataka) held that fifth\nproviso (now sixth proviso) to Section