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

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

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

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

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

iv) read with 35 (2) of the Act\nconsequent to denial of claim u/s 35 (2AB). He submitted that in view of the\nabove decisions, the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee.\n16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing\nOfficer/TPO / DRP.\n17. We have heard the rival arguments made

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 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 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 -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

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

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

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

2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the total income of the company shall be computed,— (i) without any deduction under the provisions of section 10AA or clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of section 32 or section 32AD or section 33AB or section 33ABA or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iia) or sub- clause

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

2 hereinbefore and seeking our indulgence with its alternative ground for 100% deduction of capital expenditure u/s 35(1)(iv) or depreciation thereon u/s 32 of the Act. 5. In the course of physical hearing, the learned representative of the assessee [for short “AR”] adverting to page number 1, 12, 14 & 15 of the paper book contended that, the appellant

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

2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the total income of the company shall be computed,— (i) without any deduction under the provisions of section 10AA or clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of section 32 or section 32AD or section 7 33AB or section 33ABA or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iia) or sub-clause

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

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

SAGAR BABANRAO AWATADE,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.79/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allow ance under this Act has been computed. (ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or 4 ITA.No.79/PUN/2024 Sagar Babanrao Awatade document received from the prescribed Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. R.J. BIOTECH LTD,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

2. The appellant revenue raised as many as six grounds amongst which the only issue emanates for consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in holding the seeds production activity as exempt u/s 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as against the business income as held

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. R.J. BIOTECH LTD,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm

2. The appellant revenue raised as many as six grounds amongst which the only issue emanates for consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) is justified in holding the seeds production activity as exempt u/s 10(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as against the business income as held