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

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.

depreciation of fixed assets was not provided in the books of account, resulting in excess payment of interest to the partners. The 7 assessee contends that interest paid to partners is as per the provisions of Section 40

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

depreciation claimed by the Appellant at the rate of 25% amounting ITA No.227/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14(A) Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., to Rs.91,00,069/- onintangible assets of Rs. 3,64.00,278/- under section 40

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Section 43(6) of the IT Act 1961\nestablishes that the depreciation on goodwill as a result of amalgamation is\nnot allowable.\nResultantly, the claims made by the appellant in support of this ground do\nnot have any merit. Therefore, the addition made by assessing officer on\naccount of disallowance of claim of depreciation on goodwill as a result

SHIVAJI JAGANNATH BHOSALE,BARAMATI vs. ITO WARD-5(4), PUNE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1873/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 Mr.Shivaji Jagannath Bhosale, The Income Tax Officer, Shrinath Transport Company, Vs Ward-5(4), Pune. Near Dynamix Dairy, Baramati-Bhigwan Ropad, Baramati, Pune – 413133 Pan: Abgpb 8933 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandhbhor – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune, Dated 20.09.2019For The A.Y. 2003-04. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 25,00,000/- In Respect Of Transportation Charges. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Failed To Consider The Fact That Transport Charges Paid By The Appellant Have Not Been Doubted In Assessments Of Any Of The Subsequent Years & Therefore Following The Principle Of Consistency No Addition On Adhoc Basis Can Be Made On The Same Ground In A. Y. 2003-04. Mr.Shivaji Jagannath Bhosale (A)

section 40(a)(ia) which makes it incumbent on the assessee to make TDS was introduced with effect from A. Y. 2004-05. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,67,924/- in respect of salary expenses. 6. On the facts

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. SHRI. ULHAS MALLIKARJUN PATIL,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

depreciation on school building. The ,AO treated the gain arising from sale of building as short term capital gain by invoking provisions of section 50. The appellant admitted that the correct working of income from house property would be Rs. 4,87,892/- whereas the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 2,40

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

40% of such expenses, being held to be capital in nature for the respective years under consideration, the Appellant prays for allowance of the consequential depreciation on the same, in the subsequent years, including AY 2012-13. Consequential claim of Depreciation on the Expenditure of Software 3. Consequent to the decision of Hon'ble ITAT

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

40% of such expenses, being held to be capital in nature for the respective years under consideration, the Appellant prays for allowance of the consequential depreciation on the same, in the subsequent years, including AY 2012-13. Consequential claim of Depreciation on the Expenditure of Software 3. Consequent to the decision of Hon'ble ITAT

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

Appeal is allowed in above terms

40% plus 20% additional depreciation total 60% Depreciation is claimed 2,10,71,096/-+ 1,05,35,548 Total Depreciation Amount is Rs. 3,16,06,644=00. While claiming the deduction we have relied on following cases. 4 1) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Mrs. Sulbha Subhash Lodha, vs Department Of Income Tax on 24 September, 2014. 2) Velayudhaswami

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2992/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito, Ward- 6(1), Vs. Shriniwas Engineering Pune. Auto Components Pvt. Ltd., Office- 5, Manasara Apartments, 1108/4, University Road, Near Suryamukhi Datta Man, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aajcs8944F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 23.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 03.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Cit (A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Holding That There Was No Provision In Package Scheme Of Incentives, 2007 To Show That The Asseessee Is Granted Subsidy Towards Meeting A Cost Of Asset & Cit(A) Has Erred

depreciable 3 assets invoking the provisions of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. The brief facts of the said issue are as under : The Government of Maharashtra in order to encourage the dispersal of industries to the less developed areas of the State announced the package to New/Expansion Units set up in the developing region

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance 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 document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C, it is noticed

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

40,004/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act despite contravention of the assessee to the provisions of section 80AC of the Act. 5. He observed that the provisions of section 80AC were first brought in the statute vide Finance Act, 2006. He also referred to the CBDT Circular No.14/2006 dated 28.02.2006 & CBDT Circular No.8/2018, dated 26.12.2018 and various

ELECTRONICA FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PMT BUILDING, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1111 & 1112/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Electronica Finance Limited, Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru. Audumber, 101/1, Dr. Ketkar Road, Pune City, Deccan, Gymkhana, S.O., Pune- 411004. Pan : Aaace4577B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Surat [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1111/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2022-23 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

40,441/-. The assessee company also uploaded the audit report in Form 10DA on 21.10.2022, however the same was accepted/ verified on the portal by the assessee on 09-01-2023. The return was processed on 16.03.2023 by the Assessing Officer, CPC, disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80JJAA on the ground of belated filing of the audit report in Form

ELECTRONICA FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PMT BUILDING, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1111 & 1112/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Electronica Finance Limited, Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru. Audumber, 101/1, Dr. Ketkar Road, Pune City, Deccan, Gymkhana, S.O., Pune- 411004. Pan : Aaace4577B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Surat [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1111/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2022-23 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

40,441/-. The assessee company also uploaded the audit report in Form 10DA on 21.10.2022, however the same was accepted/ verified on the portal by the assessee on 09-01-2023. The return was processed on 16.03.2023 by the Assessing Officer, CPC, disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 80JJAA on the ground of belated filing of the audit report in Form

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE vs. THE SHETKARI SHIKSHAN MANDAL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation on such assets during earlier assessment years, which indicated to the Assessing Officer that the assessee had claimed exemption in respect of acquisition of capital asset as per the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act. Since the assessee had already availed the exemption towards acquisition of capital assets which was acquired from loan fund, the application

RIL NMD EMP CO. OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,RAIGAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

40,652/- plus adjusted depreciation\nof Rs.23,905/- from providing credit facilities to its members is claimed as\n100% deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Out of net profit of Rs.74,672/-\narising from other activities viz. sale of gas cylinders, hall rent, xerox\ncharges, deduction of Rs.50,000/- u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii) has been claimed

VATSALABAI KARBHARI DEORE,KALWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2274/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12

40(a)(ia) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee's income. 2. Further it is seen that the assessee has taken unsecured loan during the year to the tune of Rs.98,50,432/- as under from the four persons:- Akash Foods and Feeds Rs.14,92,200/- Bajirao Lahanu Shinde (farmer) Rs.15

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin