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

263 were applicable because of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The most relevant extracts of its judgment are reproduced below:- "31. The material on record does indicate that the AO, in this case, sought for information from the Assessee with regard to its claim for deduction under section 10B of the IT Act vide its communication dated

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

section 263 of the Act regarding the claim of depreciation on intangible assets at ₹1,86,95,184 giving reference

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

section 263 of the Act. The notice so issued by the PCIT reads as under : “NOTICE FOR THE HEARING M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Notice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961-Assessment Year 2017- 18. In this regard, a hearing in the matter is fixed on 20/02/2024

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

section 263 and merely on basis of audit objection, proceedings 9 u/s 263 could not have been initiated. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sohana Wollen Mills (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) ii) Ganga Acrowools Limited vs. PCIT vide ITA No.196/CHD/2021 order dated 31.03.2022 for assessment year

VIVEK NATHURAM GAVHANE,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

depreciation as per the provision of Act that should be claimed for the business use period. In view of the above clarifications, we respectfully request that the proceedings under Section 263

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

263 order - In Paper- Book-IV from Page-718 to Page-931, 16 decisions are cited which allow the claim of NSEL losses, either as a "Business Loss" or as "bad-debt". In the landmark decision in case of DCIT V. Nirshilp Securities Pvt zltd - ITA No. 6322 / Mum / 2019, the angle of speculative v. non-speculative was elaborately discussed

SACHIN RAMDAS MOHITE,,SATARA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

263 in the case of CIT, Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (85 taxmann.com 10) (Date of order 31.07.2017) holding that, where AO allowed claim of deduction u/s 80HHC without examining said claim with reference to unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance as referred to in sections

M/S. KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT - 4, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 263 of the Act. In the context of the present case if, as urged by the Revenue, the assessee has wrongly claimed depreciation

JANATA GRAHAK MADHYAWARTI SAHKARI SANGH MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PCIT-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1273/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Janata Grahak Madhyawarti The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, V 2020, Grahak Bhavan, Tilak S Road, Sadashiv Peth, Pune-411030. Pan: Aabaj7614D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Dr(Cit) Date Of Hearing 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/01/2024

section 263 of the Act dated 28.03.2022. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under : “1. The learned PCIT-4, Pune erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the ITA, 1961 on the analogy that the order passed u/s 143(3) of the ITA, 1961 dated 14/11/2019 was erroneous and prejudicial

ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under\nthis Act has been computed;\n(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a\nreturn of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information\nor document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-\nsection (2) of section 133C

GRANT MEDICAL FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

depreciation of Rs.33,00,69,972/-. However, since after making the above additions and after allowing the accumulation u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act to the extent of 15% of gross receipts at Rs.73,63,65,615/-, the net surplus was Nil for which the Assessing Officer determined the taxable income at Nil. 3. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(Exemption

MAHANAGAR REALTY,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

Section 263 of the Act. In the context of the present case if, as urged by the Revenue, the Assessee has wrongly claimed depreciation

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Section 43(6) of the IT Act 1961\nestablishes that the depreciation on goodwill as a result of amalgamation is\nnot allowable.\nResultantly, the claims made by the appellant in support of this ground do\nnot have any merit. Therefore, the addition made by assessing officer on\naccount of disallowance of claim of depreciation on goodwill as a result

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

Appeal is allowed

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

depreciation. This question was answered in the negative. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held in Travancore Cements Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 1701 , that upon the issuance of a notice under section 148(2), when proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer on issues in respect of which he had formed a reason to believe that

SPN ROADS INFRSTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,,OSMANABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.663/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 Spn Roads Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Shop No.7, Kohinoor Plaza, Income-Tax-2, Anandnagar, Osmanabad – 413 501 Aurangabad Pan : Aajcs6048J Appellant Respondent

depreciation in this case is Nil and by applying the provisions of clause (iii) of 4 SPN Roads Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Explanation 1, there will be Nil deduction on this count. Nothing has been said in the written submission to counter this position. Secondly, the amount of deduction u/s 80IA(4) computed in the normal computation of income would also

BANK OF MAHARASHRA,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

Depreciation Claim v. Default in TDS vi. Default in TDS & Disallowance for such Default vii. Refund Claim viii. Business Loss ix. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment x. Disallowance u/s 40A(7) (Gratuity provision) xi. Expenses incurred for Earning Exempt Income xii. Excess Contribution to Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund or Gratuity Fund xiii. Capital Gains/Income on Sale of Property xiv. Business Expenses

BLUE STAR BUILDING MATERIAL PVT. LTD.,URAN PANVEL vs. ACIT CIRCLE PANVEL, PANVEL

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

Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

263 Ordinary 2011-12 Business 1,71,34,682 1,71,34,682 Unabsorbed 2011-12 2,06,05,222 2,06,05,222 Depreciation Ordinary 2012-13 1,86,65,117 1,86,65,117 Business Unabsorbed 2012-13 1,76,65,013 1,76,65,013 Depreciation Unabsorbed 2013-14 Depreciation

ZF STEERING GEAR (INDIA) LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14

263 of the Act. The A.O vide order dated 4-12-2012 restricted the claim for additional depreciation to Rs. 3,21,29,304/- as against Rs. 5,04,88,906/- thereby disallowing the claim for depreciation of Rs. 1,83,59,602/- which pertains to additional depreciation claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act at 20% in respect