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

THE MERCHANTS CO-OP BANK LTD. ( IN LIQUIDATION),DHULE vs. THE ITO, WARD- -1, DHULE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1927/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Merchants Co-Op Bank V The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., (In Liquidation), S. Ward-1, Dhule. Cs No.2111, Lane No.6, Near Old Amnalner Stand, Nagarpatti, Dhule-424001. Pan: Aaabt0123H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19, Dated 11.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Appellant Contends That The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have

220/-on account of interest received on fixed deposits with Banks is uncalled for. Appellant contends that the total interest received of Rs. 33,70,270/- on fixed deposits with Banks is not an income of appellant, as DICGC has an over-riding title on the said income, as per provisions of section 21(2) of the DICGC

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. CARRARO INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1261/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Carraro India Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Limited, Pune B-2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon, Pune – 412 220 Maharashtra, India Pan : Aaacc5292M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1309/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Carraro India Private Pune Limited, B-2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon, Pune – 412 220 Maharashtra, India Pan : Aaacc5292M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri M.P. Lohia Revenue By Shri Shivraj B. Morey Date Of Hearing 14-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 15-07-2021

depreciation @25%. Secondly, he held that the total amount of Royalty paid at Rs.2.36 crore was not paid for any business purpose. Invoking the provisions of section 37 of the Act, he made the addition for the full amount of M/s. Carraro India Pvt. Ltd. Rs.2.36 crore. The ld. CIT(A) overturned the assessment order on the disallowance made

M/S. CARRARO INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1261/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Carraro India Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Limited, Pune B-2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon, Pune – 412 220 Maharashtra, India Pan : Aaacc5292M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1309/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Carraro India Private Pune Limited, B-2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon, Pune – 412 220 Maharashtra, India Pan : Aaacc5292M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri M.P. Lohia Revenue By Shri Shivraj B. Morey Date Of Hearing 14-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 15-07-2021

depreciation @25%. Secondly, he held that the total amount of Royalty paid at Rs.2.36 crore was not paid for any business purpose. Invoking the provisions of section 37 of the Act, he made the addition for the full amount of M/s. Carraro India Pvt. Ltd. Rs.2.36 crore. The ld. CIT(A) overturned the assessment order on the disallowance made

M/S. ADLER MEDIEQUIP PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1),, PUNE

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AO, based on directions of DRP, has erred in holding that the deduction in respect of non-compete fees amounting to Rs 8,26,31,590 claimed by the assessee is not allowable as revenue expenditure, on the grounds that the same is capital

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

220/- to the returned income. We find the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that since the assessee failed to file Form No.10DA one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1) for the assessment year 2021-22, therefore, he is not eligible to get deduction

EXPERT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

220/- to the returned income. We find the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that since the assessee failed to file Form No.10DA one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s 139(1) for the assessment year 2021-22, therefore, he is not eligible to get deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LIMITED, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1236/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Assistant Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Commissioner Of Income V Dudhutpadak Sangh Limited, Tax, S B-1, Midc, Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416234. Pan: Aaaak0230D Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Sandeep P. Sathe – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2019.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Allowing Rs.5,62,220/- On Account Of Fixed Assets On Which Project Subsidy Was Received From National Dairy Development Board As The Department Has Contested The Issue Before The Supreme Court. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Limited [R]

2 Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Limited [R] Machinery/Equipments. The AO observed that assessee should have claimed depreciations after reducing the amounts of Rs.7,78,34,115/- from the actual cost of assets. However, assessee has not deducted the amount of Rs.7,78,34,115/- from the actual cost of assets. Hence, AO re-worked the depreciation and made

M/S KARIA BUILDERS ,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Karia Builders Ito, Ward 14(3), Pune 402, Konark Indrayu, Kondhwa, Vs. Pune – 411048 Pan: Aadfk5220B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 O R D E R

220 TTJ 625 (Gauj) iii) B.R. Bamasi vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 223 (Bom) iv) P.V. Doshi vs. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 22 (Guj) 15. He submitted that once such assessment is considered as invalid, then the penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act cannot be sustained. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

220/- and also noted the balances standing in the current account with the banks as on 01.04.2004 at Rs.7,81,313/-. As per the Assessing Officer, this showed that there was a negative balance in the bank accounts amounting to Rs.21,82,12,907/- as on 01.04.2004. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has tabulated the movement of the bank accounts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

220/- and also noted the balances standing in the current account with the banks as on 01.04.2004 at Rs.7,81,313/-. As per the Assessing Officer, this showed that there was a negative balance in the bank accounts amounting to Rs.21,82,12,907/- as on 01.04.2004. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has tabulated the movement of the bank accounts