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

depreciation in respect of each asset that was previously allowed under Section 32(1)(c) and the taxation of balancing charge under Section 41

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

depreciation in respect of each asset that was previously allowed under Section 32(1)(c) and the taxation of balancing charge under Section 41

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation (“UD”) were required to be reduced for the purposes of Explanation (iii) to section 115JB of the Act, on a conservative and rational basis, the assessee, in its return of income for AY 2013-14 filed on 26th November 2013,reduced the amount of INR 300 crores in the ratio of BFL and UD (refer Page

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation (“UD”) were required to be reduced for the purposes of Explanation (iii) to section 115JB of the Act, on a conservative and rational basis, the assessee, in its return of income for AY 2013-14 filed on 26th November 2013,reduced the amount of INR 300 crores in the ratio of BFL and UD (refer Page

DESAI INFRA PROJECTS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. CIT(A), PUNE-11, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

41,73,900/-, after claiming deduction of 2 ITA.No.1852/PUN./2024 Rs.3,42,22,700/- u/s.80IA(4)(i) of the Act. The CPC processed the return and passed an intimation u/s.143(1) determining the total income at Rs.9,83,96,600/-, by reducing the claim of deduction u/sec.80IA(4). 2.1. Before the learned CIT(A), it was argued that

VIVEK NATHURAM GAVHANE,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with

M/S. KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT - 4, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

41(1) of the Act and therefore, the question of learned A.O. verifying the said issue still simply did not arise and accordingly, the asst. order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5] The learned Pr. CIT further erred in revising the asst. order and directing the A.O. to verify the issue of allowability

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(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

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

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

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(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

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

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961?\n\n2.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/-\non product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned thereafter in this section and in section 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year. Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant 9 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. assessment

E-GAIN COMMUNICATIONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2675/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 E-Gain Communications Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Ltd., Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, The Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune. [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 11.08.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Egain Communication

41,70,849 21. The cost of the software purchase was capitalized in the books of account forming part of the depreciable assets, claimed the depreciation thereon. However, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the tax should have been deducted on this payment, for non-deduction of tax at source, invoking the provisions of section

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

depreciation of Rs.10,74,599/-. However, since the assessee is not\nin appeal before us on these two issues, we are not concerned with the same.\n9.\nSo far as the addition of trade advances from customers of Rs.26,90,56,640/-\nis concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee by observing\nas under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, KOLHAPUR vs. PRIYADARSHINI POLYSACKS LTD,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1668 & 1669/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

41, Trade Centre, 1st Floor, Station Road, Kolhapur PAN: AABCP5804F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri S.P. Walimbe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 28-10-2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 29-10-2021 आदेश / ORDER These are two appeals filed by the Revenue directed against common order of the Commissioner of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, KOLHAPUR vs. PRIYADARSHINI POLYSACKS LTD,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1668 & 1669/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

41, Trade Centre, 1st Floor, Station Road, Kolhapur PAN: AABCP5804F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri S.P. Walimbe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 28-10-2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 29-10-2021 आदेश / ORDER These are two appeals filed by the Revenue directed against common order of the Commissioner of Income

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

41,183/- as the excess share premium charged by the assessee u/s.56(2)(viib) of the Act. The observation of the AO reads as under : “4.1 Discussion and findings of the AO on the submission of the assessee: Assessing officer after going through the explanation & documents submitted by the assessee, has issued a detailed showcause notice on 08.12.2018. In response

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

41,183/- as the excess share premium charged by the assessee u/s.56(2)(viib) of the Act. The observation of the AO reads as under : “4.1 Discussion and findings of the AO on the submission of the assessee: Assessing officer after going through the explanation & documents submitted by the assessee, has issued a detailed showcause notice on 08.12.2018. In response