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

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

SHRI SHANTINATH BHAGWAN JAIN SHWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK SANGH,PUNE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us in the present appeal. During the course of hearing of appeal, the ld. AR for the assessee had withdrawn the grounds no.1 and 2 challenging the decision of the lower authorities in disallowing the claim for allowance as revenue expenditure being loss

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

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us in the present appeal. During the course of hearing of appeal, the ld. AR for the assessee had withdrawn the grounds no.1 and 2 challenging the decision of the lower authorities in disallowing the claim for allowance as revenue expenditure being loss

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

7. The Assessing Officer noted that since the interest accrued / paid by the assessee on loans pertains to the period upto 31.03.2002 where the assessee’s income was exempt from tax, therefore, the provisions of section 14A are applicable in respect of the said interest expenditure and therefore, such expenses ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 are not allowable. He further held

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

7. The Assessing Officer noted that since the interest accrued / paid by the assessee on loans pertains to the period upto 31.03.2002 where the assessee’s income was exempt from tax, therefore, the provisions of section 14A are applicable in respect of the said interest expenditure and therefore, such expenses ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 are not allowable. He further held

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

7. The Assessing Officer noted that since the interest accrued / paid by the assessee on loans pertains to the period upto 31.03.2002 where the assessee’s income was exempt from tax, therefore, the provisions of section 14A are applicable in respect of the said interest expenditure and therefore, such expenses ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 are not allowable. He further held

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

7. The Assessing Officer noted that since the interest accrued / paid by the assessee on loans pertains to the period upto 31.03.2002 where the assessee’s income was exempt from tax, therefore, the provisions of section 14A are applicable in respect of the said interest expenditure and therefore, such expenses ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 are not allowable. He further held

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

7. The Assessing Officer noted that since the interest accrued / paid by the assessee on loans pertains to the period upto 31.03.2002 where the assessee’s income was exempt from tax, therefore, the provisions of section 14A are applicable in respect of the said interest expenditure and therefore, such expenses ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 are not allowable. He further held

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

7. The Assessing Officer noted that since the interest accrued / paid by the assessee on loans pertains to the period upto 31.03.2002 where the assessee’s income was exempt from tax, therefore, the provisions of section 14A are applicable in respect of the said interest expenditure and therefore, such expenses ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 are not allowable. He further held

HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO.PVT.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.570/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Lohia Jain House, Bhandarkar Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411045. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaach4226Q बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-11, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Vardhaman Jain Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2020 आदेश / Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vp : This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 16.01.2017 On The Following Grounds As Originally Raised :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.6,13,115, Being Depreciation On Car. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Further Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of Rs.1,88,07,686 U/S 80Ia(4) Of The I T Act, 1961.” 2. At The Time Of Hearing Before Us, Ld. Representatives Of Both The Sides Have Agreed That The Issue Involved In Ground No.1 Of This Appeal Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Out Of The Depreciation On Car For Personal Use Of Directors Is Squarely Covered In Favour Of The Assessee By The Decision Of This Tribunal Rendered In Assessee’S Own Case For The Immediately Preceding Assessment Year I.E. A.Y. 2012-13 Vide

depreciation on car. Ground no.1 is accordingly allowed. 4. As regards the issue involved in ground no.2 relating to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is observed that the same is also squarely covered

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

depreciation on UPS. Finally, paragraph 7 deals with computation on the basis of the opinion in paragraphs 4.5 and 6. Thus, on the issue of deduction under section 100 of the IT Act, there is absolutely no consideration and yet, the AO has allowed such deduction. This is, according to us, is a case of ho consideration' as opposed