R B DIAMOND HOUSE,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-1, RANGE -25, CIRCLE -1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

250(6), requiring reasoned findings on\neach ground of appeal.\nGround No. 3: Non-response of Notices Due to medical issue\n3.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, hearing\nnotices were not responded to due to the illness of Ms. Rupal\nBagrecha who is taking care of accounting, all income tax and other\nstatutory compliances

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

INFOTEK NETALIA LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-11, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1004/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Infotek Netalia Ltd., V The Acit, Commerzone, I T Park, S Circle-11, Pune. Yerawada, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aabci2205B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr.Abhineet P For Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.07.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Deciding The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte Without Granting The Assessee Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Passing The Appellate Order Entirely Based On The Observations Of The Ld Ao & Without Appreciating That The Business Of The Assessee Company Was Closed & There Was No Employee To Handle The Income Tax Matters. Infotek Netalia Ltd., [A]

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 19.07.2023. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in deciding the appeal of the assessee ex-parte without granting the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in passing the Appellate Order entirely based

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

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 ITA No.1927/PUN/2025 [A] decided the appeal on the merits of the case. Appellant submits

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 14.03.2024 for ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] Assessment Year 2021-22. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming tax of appellant at Rs. 2,73,95,728/as against refund of Rs. 29,71,648/- merely due to delay

SATYAM TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

250 deserves to be set aside on this ground itself. 2. DISALLOWANCE OF SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS U/S 72 OF THE Act 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the set off of loss claimed of the business loss and depreciation loss u/s 72 of the Act of Rs. 3,83,73,199/-. 2.2 While

AAM INDIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

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

depreciation claimed. 3.1 Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2)/143(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee, followed by a show cause notice, in response to which, the assessee filed either full or part reply as mentioned by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) in the assessment order. The Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s

SINDHUDURG ZILLA TOURIST SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, KUDAL

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am Sl.

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in respect of assets of the Society”. On the face of order of the CIT(A), it is noticed that the appeals are heard by the CIT(A) without having the attendance of the assessee directly or through his Representative. Based on the written submission, the appeals were heard against the assessee. ITA Nos.1845

SINDHUDURG ZILLA TOURIST SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , KUDAL

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am Sl.

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in respect of assets of the Society”. On the face of order of the CIT(A), it is noticed that the appeals are heard by the CIT(A) without having the attendance of the assessee directly or through his Representative. Based on the written submission, the appeals were heard against the assessee. ITA Nos.1845

SINDHUDURG ZILLA TOURIST SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, KUDAL

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am Sl.

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in respect of assets of the Society”. On the face of order of the CIT(A), it is noticed that the appeals are heard by the CIT(A) without having the attendance of the assessee directly or through his Representative. Based on the written submission, the appeals were heard against the assessee. ITA Nos.1845

SINDHUDURG ZILLA TOURIST SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, KUDAL

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am Sl.

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in respect of assets of the Society”. On the face of order of the CIT(A), it is noticed that the appeals are heard by the CIT(A) without having the attendance of the assessee directly or through his Representative. Based on the written submission, the appeals were heard against the assessee. ITA Nos.1845

SINDHUDURG ZILLA TOURIST SEVA SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, KUDAL

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am Sl.

depreciation u/s 32 of the Act in respect of assets of the Society”. On the face of order of the CIT(A), it is noticed that the appeals are heard by the CIT(A) without having the attendance of the assessee directly or through his Representative. Based on the written submission, the appeals were heard against the assessee. ITA Nos.1845

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

250/-. He took note of the fact that the TPO proposed transfer pricing adjustment in respect of Brand Royalty at Rs.70,52,220/-. The AO made two observations in his order on the royalty payment. Firstly, he treated payment of Royalty as a capital expenditure subject to depreciation @25%. Secondly, he held that the total amount of Royalty paid

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

250/-. He took note of the fact that the TPO proposed transfer pricing adjustment in respect of Brand Royalty at Rs.70,52,220/-. The AO made two observations in his order on the royalty payment. Firstly, he treated payment of Royalty as a capital expenditure subject to depreciation @25%. Secondly, he held that the total amount of Royalty paid

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

250-251 the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (A) u/s.263 of the I.T. Act 9. Reply/submissions dated 05.03.2024 to the PCIT 252-257 along with the summary of depreciation as Annexure-1 10. Indian Accounting Standards referred to in para 258-333 2.2 on page 4 of the revision order of the Principle CIT dated 19.03.2024 passed u/s.263

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

250/-. Subsequently, ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings by issuance of notice u/s.274 r.w.s. u/s.270A of the Act on 16.07.2021 for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income. However, as per the ld.AO assessee failed to comply to the notice of hearing and ld. AO concluding the proceedings levying penalty u/s.270A

ARISTO FOILS MFG CO., ,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1922/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aristo Foils Mfg. Co., Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. W-229, S Block, Midc, Bhosari, Pune- 411026. Pan : Aabfa8946L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hanmant Dattatray Dhavle Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-12, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law Of The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-12 Delhi Has Grievously Erred In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte, Without Providing Sufficient Opportunity To Appellate. 2. On The Fact & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law Of The Learned Addl/Jcit (A) 12 Delhi Has Ought To Have Decided The Appeal On Merits Instead Of Dismissing The Appeal For Non- Attendance.

Depreciation. 4. On the fact and in the circumstance of the case and in law of the learned Addl / JCIT (A) 12 Delhi, has erred in disallowing and adding back an amount of Rs.24,635/- on account of Vehicle Insurance. 5. On the fact and in the circumstance of the case and in law of the learned Addl / JCIT

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

section 35. However, the amount of deduction u / s 35(1) is equal to the amount of capital expenditure on scientific research. 17. Coming back to the amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee outside India amounting to Rs 9,61,80,237/-, we find that the expenditure of revenue nature, namely, Rs.74,95,427/- was claimed by the assessee