MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

depreciation of earlier years. Still aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the assessment and restored the issue raised in grounds of appeal back to the file of Assessing Officer with a directions to recompute disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

depreciation of earlier years. Still aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the assessment and restored the issue raised in grounds of appeal back to the file of Assessing Officer with a directions to recompute disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

depreciation of earlier years. Still aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the assessment and restored the issue raised in grounds of appeal back to the file of Assessing Officer with a directions to recompute disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

Depreciation and B Amortisation – 537,805,260 2,781,271 138,280 3,820,041 30,431,612 37,171,204 1,607,101 499,026,955 2.6A reworked B.2 Sub total Indirect 5,185,975,966 11,073,027 550,532 15,208,666 121,156,878 147,989,103 12,437,115 5,052,549,778 expenditure

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

260 and Net gain will be Rs.250 (sale price Rs.260-Purchase price Rs.10). Also application form for subscribing the shares was attached with the said email. The image of this file is reproduced by the Assessing Officer at page 3 of the assessment order. Subsequently, it was found that M/s. Anax Com Trade Ltd. has been merged with M/s. Yamini Investment

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

260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [(2000)(243 ITR 83(SC)]. wherein it was clearly held that

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.

260,813 1,719,084 Equipment 6 Office 2,089,328 7,003,768 - - 9,093,096 10% 909,310 8,183,787 Premises TOTAL 152,142,981 70,805,406 11,625,315 202,950 234,370,751 34,512,323 199,858,428 AYOKI FABRICON PRIVATE LIMITED Schedule G - I SCHEDULE OF ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

depreciation of assets used by Goodyear, any fee required to obtain the accountants’ certificate referred to in section 8.2” Clause 3 of the Agreement deals with allocation of costs. Sub-clause (a) states that the assessee “will only receive, and be obligated to pay for, those services that pertain to its business and are provided by Goodyear. Clause

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURNAGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

depreciation of assets used by Goodyear, any fee required to obtain the accountants’ certificate referred to in section 8.2” Clause 3 of the Agreement deals with allocation of costs. Sub-clause (a) states that the assessee “will only receive, and be obligated to pay for, those services that pertain to its business and are provided by Goodyear. Clause

AKSHAY NITIN MALU,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

section 115BAC even though the appellant had not opted for the same in the ITR filed by him and thereby denying the following deductions to the appellant: a. Additional Depreciation u/s 32(1A) on new plant machinery acquired and put to use during the year Rs.71,31,899 b. Deduction under Chapter VIA Rs.1,63,260

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

260/-, being 20% of profits ascribed to onsite software services not related to STP undertakings in India was reduced, which brought down the amount of revised deduction u/s.10A to Rs.47,44,88,710/-. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s claim and overturned the action of the AO on this point. 17. Having heard both sides and gone through

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

260/-, being 20% of profits ascribed to onsite software services not related to STP undertakings in India was reduced, which brought down the amount of revised deduction u/s.10A to Rs.47,44,88,710/-. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s claim and overturned the action of the AO on this point. 17. Having heard both sides and gone through

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40(a)(ii) by insertion of Explanation 3 w.e.f. 01-04-2005, reading as under : “Explanation 3 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of this sub-clause, the term ‘tax’’ shall include and shall be deemed to have always included any surcharge or cess, by whatever name called, on such

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 40(a)(ii) by insertion of Explanation 3 w.e.f. 01-04-2005, reading as under : “Explanation 3 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of this sub-clause, the term ‘tax’’ shall include and shall be deemed to have always included any surcharge or cess, by whatever name called, on such

PRIDE PURPLE BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.699/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pride Purple Builders Private The Deputy Limited, V Commissioner Income Pride House, 5Th Floor, S Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. S.No.108/7, Shivajinagar, Near Pune University Circle, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aadcp 4286 H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M G Jasnani, Irs - Dr Date Of Hearing 03/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Dated 18.08.2022For A.Y.2015-16 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Pride Purple Builders Private Limited [A]

260 ITR 579 (BOM). 5.1 Ld.AR submitted that the Decision of the Hon’ble SC in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd Vs. CIT is distinguishable on facts and hence not applicable to the 6 Pride Purple Builders Private Limited [A] case of the assessee. Ld.AR submitted that in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals And Fertilizers

DY. CIT CIRCLE-8,, PUNE vs. M/S. ATLAS COPCO (I) LTD., PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1302/Pun/2010 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Sveanagar, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012. Pan: Aaaca4074D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

depreciation was allowed thereon. A.Y.2004-05 14. The Ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in front of the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. AR has placed reliance on the following judgments : (i) Standard Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 181 ITR 233 ( Bom.) (ii) Commissioner of Income

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIR-8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1302/Pun/2010 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Sveanagar, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012. Pan: Aaaca4074D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

depreciation was allowed thereon. A.Y.2004-05 14. The Ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in front of the Assessing Officer as well as before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. AR has placed reliance on the following judgments : (i) Standard Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 181 ITR 233 ( Bom.) (ii) Commissioner of Income

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

Section 69A.\nGround No. 6: Interest Disallowance Rs.1,54,43,569/-\n6.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have\nconsidered and deleted the disallowance of Rs.1,54,43,569/-\nbeing\ninterest on Cash Credit facility as the Cash Credit facility was\nproperly reflected