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. 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

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

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

8. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the loss arising out of reinstatement of the ECB loan as on date of balance sheet can be added

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

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

8. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the loss arising out of reinstatement of the ECB loan as on date of balance sheet can be added

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

8. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeal) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case, by not following the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of "HimatasingikeSeide Ltd. Vs CIT (286 ITR 255)" wherein it has been held that the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation have to be adjusted before allowing

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

8. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeal) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case, by not following the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of "HimatasingikeSeide Ltd. Vs CIT (286 ITR 255)" wherein it has been held that the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation have to be adjusted before allowing

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

AYOKI FABRICON PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2155/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ayoki Fabricon Pvt. Ltd., 137 To 139, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Pune. Pan : Aabca5780F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 14.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.1,10,53,748/- U/S 32(1)(Iia) On New Plant & Machinery On The Ground That The Assessee Was Not Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Or Production Of Any Article Or Thing. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring The Fact That – I) The Details Furnished To The Assessing Officer By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Were Same As Were Furnished During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) & Therefore.

section 147 of the Act. 5 8. Explaining the background facts of the case, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment proceedings were finalized by the Assessing Officer, who passed the well reasoned order for the earlier assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2011-12. In these assessment years, the assessee made a similar claim of additional

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

8. The Assessing Officer further noticed that during the course of Special Audit U/s. 142(2A), the Auditor had found that capital expenditure to the tune of Rs.20,90,642 was claimed as revenue expenditure. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and following the directions of the CIT(A)-I, Thane, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation

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

8. The Assessing Officer further noticed that during the course of Special Audit U/s. 142(2A), the Auditor had found that capital expenditure to the tune of Rs.20,90,642 was claimed as revenue expenditure. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and following the directions of the CIT(A)-I, Thane, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation

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

8. The Assessing Officer further noticed that during the course of Special Audit U/s. 142(2A), the Auditor had found that capital expenditure to the tune of Rs.20,90,642 was claimed as revenue expenditure. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and following the directions of the CIT(A)-I, Thane, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation

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

8. The Assessing Officer further noticed that during the course of Special Audit U/s. 142(2A), the Auditor had found that capital expenditure to the tune of Rs.20,90,642 was claimed as revenue expenditure. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and following the directions of the CIT(A)-I, Thane, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation

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

8. The Assessing Officer further noticed that during the course of Special Audit U/s. 142(2A), the Auditor had found that capital expenditure to the tune of Rs.20,90,642 was claimed as revenue expenditure. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and following the directions of the CIT(A)-I, Thane, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation

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

8. The Assessing Officer further noticed that during the course of Special Audit U/s. 142(2A), the Auditor had found that capital expenditure to the tune of Rs.20,90,642 was claimed as revenue expenditure. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and following the directions of the CIT(A)-I, Thane, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation

SHANKAR NAGAPPA JADAGOUDA,KOLHAPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

255 ITR 220 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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. AESSEAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

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