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

274 (Bangalore\n-Trib.) held that amendment in Section 32(1) by Finance Act, 2021 to\nthe effect that no depreciation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation / brought forward business loss be upheld. 3. Ground No. 3 On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 35,16,386/- under section 234A of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234A of the Act could

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation / brought forward business loss be upheld. 3. Ground No. 3 On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO has erred in levying interest of INR 35,16,386/- under section 234A of the Act. The Appellant prays that the interest under section 234A of the Act could

AAM INDIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

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

274 in conjunction with section 270A of the Act. Any consequential relief to which the Appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal or otherwise, thus may be granted. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

SAKAL PAPER LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.347 & 348/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sakal Papers Ltd., ………. अपीलाथ" / 595, Budhwar Peth, Appellant Pune – 411 002. Pan : Aaccs7605Q. बनाम V/S

depreciation / losses of earlier years of 80IA unit are set off there would be no profit for A.Y. 2007-08 to be claimed u/s 80IA(4). Since assessee has claimed ineligible deduction u/s 80IA(4), penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are clearly attracted for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 3.3. Similar grounds have been raised by assessee

RIETER INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1551/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

274 of the Act read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that, adjustment to transfer price is just on account of difference of opinion on the computation of arm's length price as determined by the learned TPO vis-a-vis as determined by the Appellant. 3. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD.,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.739/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., Plastic Park, Post Box No.72, N.H. No.6, Bambhori, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalgaon – 425001 …. Pan: Aaacj7163Q Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range-1, Jalgaon

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings, dated 21.03.2013. It has been pointed out that the said issue stands covered by decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT Vs. Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd. (2018) 100 taxmann.com 413 (Bom) and also by Pune Bench of Tribunal in Soktas India (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITA Nos.739 & 831/PUN/2015

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEM LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.739/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., Plastic Park, Post Box No.72, N.H. No.6, Bambhori, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalgaon – 425001 …. Pan: Aaacj7163Q Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range-1, Jalgaon

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act initiating penalty proceedings, dated 21.03.2013. It has been pointed out that the said issue stands covered by decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT Vs. Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd. (2018) 100 taxmann.com 413 (Bom) and also by Pune Bench of Tribunal in Soktas India (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITA Nos.739 & 831/PUN/2015

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASST. COMM. OF INCOME-TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1677/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act along with the said draft assessment order, thereby not following the mandate as laid down under section 144C of the Act. The Appellant prays that the said draft assessment order be held as void-ab-initio, bad in law and illegal and consequently the entire assessment ought to be quashed

BALAJI UDYOG,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Balaji Udyog, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Jalgaon. J-81, Midc Area, Jalgaon- 425003. Pan : Aagfb2522E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay Kawadia Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit(A). Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Interest Paid To Partners Amounting To Rs.19,23,457/- U/S 40(B) Of The Act. He Specifically Erred In Law In Recasting The Capital Accounts Of The Partners On Account Of Non-Provision Of Depreciation In Books Of Account. 2) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs.1,13,286/-Being 10% Of The Various Expenses Debited To Profit & Loss Account.

section 32(1) of the IT Act held that depreciation is required to be provided in books of accounts & since the assessee failed to do so, therefore, he re-casted the capital account of the partners by reducing the amount of depreciation of earlier years and accordingly excess interest of Rs.19,23,457/- was disallowed by the Assessing Officer

COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

274/-. At the end of assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act, total income of assessee is determined at Rs.7,91,33,530/-. The Assessing Officer made the following additions and the contents in para 7 of assessment order are extracted as follows: “7. Subject to the above and on discussion with the authorized representative, the total income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

274 of the Act read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that, adjustment to transfer price is on account of difference of opinion which has consequently resulted in adjustment to the income of the Appellant. Additional grounds of appeal 6 JCB India Limited, not a comparable company Based on the facts and circumstances

M/S. HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

274 of the Act read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without considering the fact that, adjustment to transfer price is on account of difference of opinion which has consequently resulted in adjustment to the income of the Appellant. Additional grounds of appeal 6 JCB India Limited, not a comparable company Based on the facts and circumstances

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

274 read with\nsection 270A of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the\nadditions made by the Ld. AO are not in accordance with the law.\nWithout prejudice to the above grounds\n16. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nAO has erred in passing the impugned Assessment Order under\nSection 143(3) read

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

depreciation was reduced. Relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as under : “4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of cement, manufacturing and sale of asbestos sheets, heavy engineering workshop and foundry. The assessee filed its return of income electronically

PRODAIR AIR PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.495/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Prodair Air Products India The Assistant Private Limited, V Commissioner Of 602 Pentagon 5, Magarpatta S Income Tax, Circle-4, City, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013. Pune. Pan: Aafcp0045E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Chandni Shah & Ridhi Maru – Ar Revenue By Shri Subhakant Sahu – Irs, Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

274 r.w.s. 270 of the Act. In view of foregoing grounds of appeal, the Appellant most humbly prays that the abovementioned TP adjustment ought to be deleted.” Submission of Ld. AR : 3. Ld.Authorised Representative(AR) for the assessee filed paper book. Ld.AR explained that the Assessee is a 100% subsidiary of Air Products and Chemicals Inc USA. Assessee is mainly

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 expenses originally absorbed by the appellant in its Segmental P&L as per TP Report. Ground 6: Non-acceptance/exclusion of overseas comparable companies On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AU based on the directions of Ld. DRP has erred in notaccepting/excluding the overseas comparable companies operating in the regions where

KRISHI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI,SOLAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, SOLAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.77/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 Krishi Utpanna Bazar Sammittee, The Asst. Commissioner Basveshwar Market Yard, Tal: Vs Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Akkalkot, Solapur – 413216. Solapur. Pan: Aaaak 1791 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Pune-10’S, Order Dated 06.11.2019For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Involving Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Levying The Penalty Of Rs.2,02,600/- By Passing Order U/S 271(1)(C) By Disregarding The Appellants Contention.”

depreciation Rs.1,47,527/- The AO levied Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 30/06/2011 for the impugned wrong claims. 3. No one appeared for the appellant assessee. The appeal is decided Ex Party with the help of the Ld.DR. 3.1. We have studied the records and heard the Ld.DR. On perusal of the Penalty Notice