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

35(1) (iv) or depreciation thereon under Section 32 of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or withdraw the grounds of Appeal. 25. After hearing both the sides, we find the above grounds are identical to the grounds of appeal No.2 to 4 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.127/PUN/2024. We have already decided

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

35(1) (iv) or depreciation thereon under Section 32 of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or withdraw the grounds of Appeal. 25. After hearing both the sides, we find the above grounds are identical to the grounds of appeal No.2 to 4 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.127/PUN/2024. We have already decided

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

35(1) (iv) or depreciation thereon under Section 32 of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or withdraw the grounds of Appeal. 25. After hearing both the sides, we find the above grounds are identical to the grounds of appeal No.2 to 4 raised by the Revenue in ITA No.127/PUN/2024. We have already decided

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. EPYGEN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation shall be admissible under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32. 9. The assessee in the instant case has claimed the alleged expenditure u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Act read with Explanation 1 to Section 35(2

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

depreciation in the fight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not concerned with the same. 45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee 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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

depreciation in the fight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not concerned with the same. 45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

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

iv) "relevant assessment year" means any assessment year falling within a period of fifteen consecutive assessment years referred to in this section; 46 (v) "Special Economic Zone" and "Unit" shall have the same meanings as assigned to them under clauses (za) and (zc) of section 2 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts

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

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

2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost of land etc., qualifies for full one time deduction in the year of such incurring. Unlike sub-section (2AB), sub-section (1) does not require any specific approval from the prescribed authority for this purpose. Further, there is no stipulation that

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

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

35(1)(iv) of the Act, needs to be corrected by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we order. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by assessee is allowed. 17. The ground No.5 relates to the disallowance under section 14A of the Act. On finding that the assessee earned exempt income of Rs.8,24,530/- (para 5.3 of assessment order), the Assessing

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

depreciation from book profits of the current year which are governed by section 40(b) does not arise. In support of his arguments, the ld. AR draws strengthen from the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shree Yogeshwar Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 1173/AHD/2014 for assessment year 2005-06 decided

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

depreciation from book profits of the current year which are governed by section 40(b) does not arise. In support of his arguments, the ld. AR draws strengthen from the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shree Yogeshwar Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 1173/AHD/2014 for assessment year 2005-06 decided

ASSISTANT OINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PYC HINDU GYMKHANA,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.179/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

35,827/-. The AO discussed this issue in Para 4.12 which has already been extracted above. Thus, the AO allowed only the claim of depreciation on the capital expenditure of Rs.1,93,58,277/- and not the said capital expenditure. Accordingly, the net profit of Rs.1,22,57,038/- i.e. (Rs.3,83,02,928/- (-) Rs.2,60,45,890/-) is added

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

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

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 133(6) of the Act, where hawala dealer was not traceable and in the absence of the assessee failing to file any documentary evidence of delivery of 18 Serum Institute of India Ltd., A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2012-13 goods, addition is to be upheld in the hands of assessee on account of such bogus purchases. IV. The next

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

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

iv) read with 35 (2) of the Act consequent to denial of claim u/s 35 (2AB). He submitted that in view of the above decisions, the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee. 16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer/TPO / DRP. 17. We have heard the rival arguments made

JAYNT VASUDEO ARADHYE,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.683/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Villa No.25, Indradhanu, Laxmi Peth, Vishnu Mill Compound, Solapur- 413001. Pan : Aappa8903M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2022-23 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. The Cpc Was Not Correct Both Factually & Legally In Not Considering The Claim Of Brought Forwarded Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs 27,78,028/-. 11. Section 143(1) As It Stands On The Statute Books As On Today, Does Not Permit Either Cpc Or The Ao To Make Such Adjustments As They Are Beyond The Scope Of The Said Section.

35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or clause (iia) of section 57 or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 80CCD or section 80JJAA; (ii) without set off of any loss, - (a) carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation