SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

NAWAB PASHASAHEB JAMADAR,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपीऱ सं. /Ita No.731/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Global Panacea Hospital, Latur Gross Golden Jubilee, B-Block, Mahaeboob Nagar, Ambajogai Road, Latur – 413 512, Maharashtra Pan : Aaopj3902E Appellant Respondent

29-10-2013 for a total consideration of Rs.35,51,000/-. The assessee started constructing a new hospital-cum-residential building, on which a sum of Rs.78,39,068/- was incurred during the year. The said amount was added to the block of building and depreciation was accordingly claimed. On being called upon to substantiate as to why the capital

SAHYADRI KARAD HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

depreciation claim of Rs.25,29,56,125/- on the grounds that the same had been rejected in the preceding assessment year 2019-2020 involving section

SAHYADRI KARAD HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

depreciation claim of Rs.25,29,56,125/- on the grounds that the same had been rejected in the preceding assessment year 2019-2020 involving section

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

29,71,648/- merely due to delay in filing of form 10-IC on the ITBA portal. Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that, delay in filing of form 10-IC is a mere procedural issue, and not any substantive issue to determine tax liability. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by confirming

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)

29,139 Ordinary 2010-11 9,65,91,286 1,39,24,384 8,26,66,902 Business Unabsorbed 2010-11 Depreciation 2,39,21,263 2,39,21,263 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

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

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 of eligible assets put to use for less than 180 days, as against the rate of 10% (i.e. restricted

AIR CONTRAL INDIA PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

section 32(1)(iia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is upheld and the ground is dismissed.” 3. Both the learned representatives reiterated their respective stands against and in support the lower authorities’ action under challenge disallowing the assessee’s additional depreciation claim. We make it clear that the assessee has already been granted normal depreciation on the corresponding fixed asset

DESAI INFRA PROJECTS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. CIT(A), PUNE-11, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

29 on 07.10.2022, i.e. just 48 minutes before the limitation time. 9. It is further seen from the Tax Audit report, i.e. Form 3CD filed by the appellant that the said tax audit report was completed at 11:52:03 PM on 07.10.2022, i.e. just 8 minutes before the limitation time. Since the Form 10CCB can be issued

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 Income-tax Act empowers the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) to pass a revision order after examining only the record of the proceedings in which the order, which is subject matter of revision, has been passed. Thus the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) does not have the power/jurisdiction to revise the assessment order

MAHATMA PHULE GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. PCIT-1, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

29,063/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. He noticed that the Assessing Officer had not made any query in this regard to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and allowed the deduction of Rs.8,40,004/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act despite contravention of the assessee to the provisions of section 80AC

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 be concluded favorably based on the information provided.” 11. Now the facts narrated by the assessee before ld.PCIT indicates that the above properties were rented for part

DCIT,CIRCLE-8 , PUNE vs. MAHALE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

29,820/- wherein he made the disallowance of Rs.8,31,07,474/- being the weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act and Rs.1,04,77,500/- being the Product Development expenses treating the same as Capital Expenditure as against Revenue expenditure claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer while making the disallowance u/s 35(2AB) followed the decision

MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

29,820/- wherein he made the disallowance of Rs.8,31,07,474/- being the weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act and Rs.1,04,77,500/- being the Product Development expenses treating the same as Capital Expenditure as against Revenue expenditure claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer while making the disallowance u/s 35(2AB) followed the decision

DCIT CIRCLE 8 , PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

29,820/- wherein he made the disallowance of Rs.8,31,07,474/- being the weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act and Rs.1,04,77,500/- being the Product Development expenses treating the same as Capital Expenditure as against Revenue expenditure claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer while making the disallowance u/s 35(2AB) followed the decision

DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., PUNE

29,820/- wherein he made the disallowance of Rs.8,31,07,474/- being the weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act and Rs.1,04,77,500/- being the Product Development expenses treating the same as Capital Expenditure as against Revenue expenditure claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer while making the disallowance u/s 35(2AB) followed the decision