TRIZETTO SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

255 (Kar.) which is relevant for the proposition that brought forward depreciation has to be adjusted against the eligible profits before computing the allowable deduction. Further, AO is of the opinion that any brought forward unabsorbed depreciation cannot be set off against the income from other sources as per section 32(2) r.w.c.71 of the Act. Contents of Para 4

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned thereafter in this section and in section 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year. Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant 9 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. AVESTA COMPUTERS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2070 & 2071/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Avesta Computers Pvt. Ltd., Kapil Complex, Baner Road, Baner, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411045 Pan: Aabca4736F

255)" wherein it has been held that the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation have to be adjusted before allowing the deduction under section 10A and the same has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of vide Civil Appeal No. 1501 of 2008 [2013-TIOL-53-SC-IT-LB] and dismissed the appeal of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. AVESTA COMPUTERS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2070 & 2071/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 1(1), Pune …. Vs. Avesta Computers Pvt. Ltd., Kapil Complex, Baner Road, Baner, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411045 Pan: Aabca4736F

255)" wherein it has been held that the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation have to be adjusted before allowing the deduction under section 10A and the same has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of vide Civil Appeal No. 1501 of 2008 [2013-TIOL-53-SC-IT-LB] and dismissed the appeal of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CUMMINS RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2073/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

255)" wherein it has been held that the brought forward losses 2 M/s. Cummins Research & Technology India Pvt. Ltd., and unabsorbed depreciation have to be adjusted before allowing the deduction under section 10A and the same has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of vide Civil Appeal No.1501 of 2008 [2013- TIOL

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, , NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

255 ITR 2201 dealt with the question as to whether, after initiating proceedings under section 147 on the ground that the petitioner had claimed depreciation at a higher rate, 5 ITA.Nos.1693 & 1694/PUN/2019 & ITA.No.210/PUN/2021 M/s. Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., Latur, Maharashtra. the Assessing Officer would be justified in launching an inquiry into issues which were not connected with

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

255 ITR 2201 dealt with the question as to whether, after initiating proceedings under section 147 on the ground that the petitioner had claimed depreciation at a higher rate, 5 ITA.Nos.1693 & 1694/PUN/2019 & ITA.No.210/PUN/2021 M/s. Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., Latur, Maharashtra. the Assessing Officer would be justified in launching an inquiry into issues which were not connected with

M/S. RAJLAXMI PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, LATUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

255 ITR 2201 dealt with the question as to whether, after initiating proceedings under section 147 on the ground that the petitioner had claimed depreciation at a higher rate, 5 ITA.Nos.1693 & 1694/PUN/2019 & ITA.No.210/PUN/2021 M/s. Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd., Latur, Maharashtra. the Assessing Officer would be justified in launching an inquiry into issues which were not connected with

M/S. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. ITO, WD.-3(3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

depreciation on water pollution control equipment was also disallowed by him by holding that the transaction to be a sham transaction. Accordingly, the claim for professional fee was also disallowed in 2nd round by AO. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A) in 2nd round. Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

depreciation on water pollution control equipment was also disallowed by him by holding that the transaction to be a sham transaction. Accordingly, the claim for professional fee was also disallowed in 2nd round by AO. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A) in 2nd round. Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. MANTRI HOUSING & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

depreciation on water pollution control equipment was also disallowed by him by holding that the transaction to be a sham transaction. Accordingly, the claim for professional fee was also disallowed in 2nd round by AO. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A) in 2nd round. Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved

ACIT, CIR.-1(2),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

depreciation on water pollution control equipment was also disallowed by him by holding that the transaction to be a sham transaction. Accordingly, the claim for professional fee was also disallowed in 2nd round by AO. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A) in 2nd round. Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of AO. Aggrieved

FRANCOIS COMPRESSOR INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2504/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ………. अपीलाथ" / Francois Compressor India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.147/1(New), Lavale Road, Appellant Pirangut, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune – 412115. Pan : Aabcf0496K. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (2), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah. Revenue By : Shri Amol Kamat. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dt.31.08.2017 Passed Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under : The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Sale

depreciation. 6. Grounds of appeal no.3 and 4 are not pressed. The additional ground of appeal no.2 is also not pressed. 7. Grounds of appeal no.1 and 2 challenge the correctness of the working of adjustment on account of capacity utilization in conformity with the directions of the Hon’ble DRP. It is contended that the Assessing Officer

AESSEAL INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

255 had categorically held that the adjustments in the actual cost on account of increase or decrease in liability in the repayment of foreign loan should be taken into account. The Parliament had enacted the provisions of section 43A of the Act w.e.f. 4.1.1967 to provide for adjustments in the actual cost of the assets pursuant to change

AESSEAL INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

255 had categorically held that the adjustments in the actual cost on account of increase or decrease in liability in the repayment of foreign loan should be taken into account. The Parliament had enacted the provisions of section 43A of the Act w.e.f. 4.1.1967 to provide for adjustments in the actual cost of the assets pursuant to change

M/S. SHI vs. HAKTI SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LIMITED,,OSMANABADVS.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, NANDED

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shivshakti Shetkari Vs. Dcit, Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Circle-3, Limited, Nanded Washi Dist., Osmanabad. Pan : Aacts1082Q Appellant Respondent

255 ITR 2201 dealt with the question as to whether, after initiating proceedings under section 147 on the ground that the petitioner had claimed depreciation at a higher rate, the Assessing Officer would be justified in launching an inquiry into issues which were not connected with the claim of depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ABHAY COTEX PVT. LTD.,, JALNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1423/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

depreciation. This ground of appeal is allowed.” There is no dispute on the fact that the Revenue did not file appeal for the A.Y. 2012-13 against the relief granted by the CIT(A). 13. Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the order of AO dutifully. 14. During the proceedings before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

4, along with its sub paragraphs 4.1 to 47 deal with disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in the context of commission exceeding Re. 18.00 crore paid by the Assessee during the relevant assessment year, even though the TDS on the commission paint was negligible. Paragraph 5 deals with the expenditure incurred fowants research and development Paragraph 6 deals with