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

33. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted has referred to the following written submissions : (A) On merits the subsidy is not chargeable income as the assessee has deducted the amount of Rs. 37.09 Crore from cost of assets for claiming the written depreciation. Please refer submissions in Annexure 'A' to Assessment Year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., 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

33. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted has referred to the following written submissions : (A) On merits the subsidy is not chargeable income as the assessee has deducted the amount of Rs. 37.09 Crore from cost of assets for claiming the written depreciation. Please refer submissions in Annexure 'A' to Assessment Year

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

33. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted has referred to the following written submissions : (A) On merits the subsidy is not chargeable income as the assessee has deducted the amount of Rs. 37.09 Crore from cost of assets for claiming the written depreciation. Please refer submissions in Annexure 'A' to Assessment Year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

section 32(1)(iii). This amendment also strengthen the claim that now only detail for "block of assets" has to be maintained and not separately for each asset. 33. Having regard to this legislative intent contained in the aforesaid amendment, it is difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue that for allowing the depreciation

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

section 32(1)(iii). This amendment also strengthen the claim that now only detail for "block of assets" has to be maintained and not separately for each asset. 33. Having regard to this legislative intent contained in the aforesaid amendment, it is difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue that for allowing the 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

section (2) of sec. 14A of the Act could be invoked only if the ld. O having regard to the accounts of the assessee, was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

33 in the context of interpretation of the 54 provisions of section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act after making a reference to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Silver and Arts Palace, 259 ITR 684, CIT vs. Suresh (B.), 313 ITR 149, J. B. Boda & Co. P. Ltd. vs. CBDT

SMT. SUNITA G. DESAI,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, RATNAGIRI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2761/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt.Sunitag.Desai, The Income Tax Officer, Master Plaza, Jakadevi, Vs Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Khalgaon, Ratnagiri. Pan: Abopd 2868 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur Dated 01.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Ito, Ward-1, Ratnagiri (Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao) In Assessing Total Income Of Appellant At Rs, 50,34,254/- Instead Of Returned Income Of Rs. 4,05,200/-. 2. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Additionof Rs.33,79,054/- Made By The Learned Ao U/S 69C Of The Ita, 1961 For The Bogus Purchases From M/S. Adijin Enterprises & M/S. Hiten Enterprises; Without Appreciating That, No Any Enquiries Were Carried Out By The L-T Authorities In This Regard. 3. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur & The Learned Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That, The Said Bogus Purchases Of Rs. 33,79,054/- Were, Intact, Capitalized To Plant & Machinery & Depreciation Of Only Rs. 5,06,958/- (I.E. 15% Of Rs. 33,79,054/-) Was Claimed As A Deduction By Appellant During Ay 2009-10. The Learned

33,79,054/- u/s 69 of the ITA, 1961. 5. The learned CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur erred in law and on the facts in sustaining addition of Rs.9,00,000/- as profits from business u/s 41(1) of the ITA, 1961. The learned l-T Authoritiesought to have appreciated that the transaction is in the nature of gift from relative

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

33,61,805/- out of which the assessee has claimed weighted deduction on R&D cost amounting to Rs.4,15,53,737/- carried outside India, out of which, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.8,31,07,474/- being the disallowance of weighted deduction claimed on expenditure incurred outside India. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred outside India

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

33,61,805/- out of which the assessee has claimed weighted deduction on R&D cost amounting to Rs.4,15,53,737/- carried outside India, out of which, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.8,31,07,474/- being the disallowance of weighted deduction claimed on expenditure incurred outside India.\n\n5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred outside

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

33,61,805/- out of which the assessee has claimed weighted deduction on R&D cost amounting to Rs.4,15,53,737/- carried outside India, out of which, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.8,31,07,474/- being the disallowance of weighted deduction claimed on expenditure incurred outside India. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred outside India

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

33,61,805/- out of which the assessee has claimed weighted deduction on R&D cost amounting to Rs.4,15,53,737/- carried outside India, out of which, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.8,31,07,474/- being the disallowance of weighted deduction claimed on expenditure incurred outside India. 5. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed expenses incurred outside India

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.

33 taxmann.com 360 (Madras). 8. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the sub-ordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. Ld. DR further pointed out that the explanation 5 to section 32(1) of the IT Act has made it compulsory for the assessee to claim depreciation

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. It is not a panacea for all the tax related issues of amalgamation, so as to have application insofar as the other tax entitlements, privileges or benefits in the hands of the amalgamating company, are concerned. 14. Section 74 deals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. It is not a panacea for all the tax related issues of amalgamation, so as to have application insofar as the other tax entitlements, privileges or benefits in the hands of the amalgamating company, are concerned. 14. Section 74 deals

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

33 CO No.43/PUN/2025 The existing provisions contained in section 153C provide that in the course of an assessment proceeding, in the case of a person in whose case search action under section 132 or action under section 132A have been conducted, and whether the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the assets or books of account or documents seized belong

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2043/Pun/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The A.C.I.T., Sharada Erectors Pvt. Ltd. Circle-6, Vs 38, Vijayanagar Colony, Pune Pune-411030. Pan No. Aaccs 6028 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Revenue By Ms. Divya Bajpai (Cit-Dr) Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak Date Of Hearing 22/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Pune, Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)-4/Dcit, Circle-6, Pune/85/2016-17/152 Dated 27/03/2017 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 7,44,78,911/- U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, When The Funds Were Raised By Interest Bearing Loan Which Was Advanced To Sister Concern For Non Business Purpose. 2. For This An Such Other Reasons As May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing, The Order Of The Cit(A) May Be Vacated & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Alter Or Delete Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal.” 2. The Assessee Is A Builder-Developer. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, In The Assessment Order, It Is Claimed That The Assessee Has Used Interest Bearing Funds For Giving Advances To Its Sister Concerns & Related Entities, Therefore, The A.O. Opined That The Funds Have Been Used For Non-Business Purposes. The Assessee Submitted Before The A.O. During The Assessment Proceedings That They Have

Depreciation 14,21,60,804.15 5. Advance from R M Dhariwal & 1,25,00,000.00 HUF 6. Deposits towards leased premises 7,38,76,725.00 Total 50,60,18,314.31 The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee was having its own funds of Rs. 27.12 crores whereas the interest free advances to its sister concerns were only

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

33. Analysis of the assessment order dated 23/12/2009 indicates that in its first three paragraphs, there is a reference to the nature of business undertaken by the Assessee and reference of the case of the Assessee under section 92CA of the IT Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer for determination of arm's length price in respect of international transactions