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

Section 35(1) (iv) or depreciation thereon under Section 32 of the Act.\n\n7.\nThe appellant craves leave to add to, alter

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

Section 35(1) (iv) or depreciation thereon under Section 32 of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter

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

Section 35(1) (iv) or depreciation thereon under Section 32 of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter

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

35(1)/37 of Rs.14,37,06,712/-. (g) Disallowance of donation u/s 37(1) of Rs.5,50,000/-. (h) Disallowance of repairs to building, plant and machinery of Rs.1,16,36,450/-. 5 Disallowance of sales and promotion expenditure of Rs.2,90,94,637/-. (j) Disallowance of Corporate Guarantee Commission of Rs.1,20,29,793/-. (k) Disallowance of deduction

MAHLE BEHR INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Section 35(1) (iv) Income Tax Act, 1961 at least to\nthe extent of One hundred percent.\n4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the\nbusiness of manufacture and sale of air conditioners, radiators, heat exchangers\nparts and components thereof which are used in cars and SUVs and in providing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45.\nFurther, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45.\nFurther, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45.\nFurther, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

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

iv) Abhijit Despande vs. DCIT vide ITA No 492/PUN/2018 order dated 03.05.2019 for assessment year 2010-11 17. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that when objections were rejected on 07.03.2022 and the re-assessment order was passed on 30.03.2022, the assessee was not provided any reasonable opportunity to challenge the reopening before the higher authorities, therefore

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

35,564. 5. Subsequently, ld. PCIT (Central) invoked provisions of section 263 of the Act regarding the claim of depreciation on intangible assets at ₹1,86,95,184 giving reference of the generation of goodwill at the time of amalgamation in the A.Y. 2015-16 and also observed that during the year under 4 M/s Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd. consideration

M/S. VICTOR GASKETS INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.626/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Victor Gaskets India Ltd., 152/223, Mahalunge, Chakan Talegaon Rd, Tal. Khed, Dist. Pune - 410501 . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan: Aabcv2847C बनाम / V/S. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle 10, Pune द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri R. D. Onkar Revenue By : Shri Ramnath Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing: 14/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 19/02/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Partially Confirming The Order Of Assessment Dt.28/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 10, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 11

iv) of the Act or alternatively a claim for depreciation thereon u/s 32 of the Act. 11. Keeping in mind the conditions prescribed for claim of deduction u/s 35(2AB) cannot be hauled to make applicable to any claim for deduction u/s 35(1) of the Act, we find that, in the evince of recognition by the DSIR, the appellant

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

iv) bottling of gas into cylinder; (v) printing of books or production of cinematograph film; or (vi) any other business as may be notified by the Central Government in this behalf; and (c) the total income of the company has been computed,— (i) without any deduction under the provisions of section 10AA or clause (iia) of sub-section (1

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

1) or sub-section (2AA) or sub-section (2AB) of section 35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or section 35CCD or under any provisions of 31-32[Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA or section 80M]; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss

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

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

Appeal is allowed in above terms

iv) Madhu Industries Ltd. VS ITO, ITA No.4172(AHD) of 2007 dated 23/07/2010. 3. We have claimed depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the I T Act, 1961 at rates prescribed in Appendix I which relates of Tangible Asset under the heading "III Machinery and Plant", in item 8 in sub-item (xiii), in sub-sub Item (1

M/S KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2021-22

1) or sub-section (2AA) or sub-section (2AB) of section 35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or section 35CCD or under any provisions of 78[Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes" other than the provisions of section 80JJAA]; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation from