DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation chart for Income Tax Purposes 1 2016-17 43.20 Cr. 44.57 Cr. 5,9,38 & 39 2 2017-18 59.64 Cr. 61.56 Cr. 5,9,55 & 56 3 2018-19 37.09 Cr. 37.09 Cr. 44, 46, 132, 152 & 159 4 2019-20 32.24 Cr. 33.24 Cr. 42

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation chart for Income Tax Purposes 1 2016-17 43.20 Cr. 44.57 Cr. 5,9,38 & 39 2 2017-18 59.64 Cr. 61.56 Cr. 5,9,55 & 56 3 2018-19 37.09 Cr. 37.09 Cr. 44, 46, 132, 152 & 159 4 2019-20 32.24 Cr. 33.24 Cr. 42

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation chart for Income Tax Purposes 1 2016-17 43.20 Cr. 44.57 Cr. 5,9,38 & 39 2 2017-18 59.64 Cr. 61.56 Cr. 5,9,55 & 56 3 2018-19 37.09 Cr. 37.09 Cr. 44, 46, 132, 152 & 159 4 2019-20 32.24 Cr. 33.24 Cr. 42

NAWAB PASHASAHEB JAMADAR,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपीऱ सं. /Ita No.731/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Global Panacea Hospital, Latur Gross Golden Jubilee, B-Block, Mahaeboob Nagar, Ambajogai Road, Latur – 413 512, Maharashtra Pan : Aaopj3902E Appellant Respondent

section 50(2), he computed the short term capital gain by reducing the written down value and value of the block from the sale consideration of Rs.35,51,000/-, for determining short term capital gain at Rs.31,31,800/-. Since the benefit of depreciation was claimed by considering the construction of new building as part of the block

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. MAHALAXMI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

depreciation on\nluxury car of Rs.32,42,484/- ignoring the fact that the Assessee could\nnot furnish necessary evidence to show that the luxury car were used\nwholly for business purpose to rule out personal use by directors of\nthe company.\nGrounds of Appeal subject to consent of the Assessee for deferment\n(α)\n(b)\nWhether, the assessee fulfills

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 claims; respectively. 4. We stay back on this first and foremost substantive issue of applicability of section 43(1) Explanation 10 read with Proviso thereto. CO Nos.05 & 06/PUN/2022 M/s. Lokmangal Agro Industries Ltd., The Revenue’s vehement stand in light of the Assessing Officer’s assessment findings dated 28-03-2016 is that the assessee had in fact met/received

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

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

depreciation claims; respectively. 4. We stay back on this first and foremost substantive issue of applicability of section 43(1) Explanation 10 read with Proviso thereto. CO Nos.05 & 06/PUN/2022 M/s. Lokmangal Agro Industries Ltd., The Revenue’s vehement stand in light of the Assessing Officer’s assessment findings dated 28-03-2016 is that the assessee had in fact met/received

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

section 80JJAA. He submitted that the above decision was passed after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Wipro Ltd., [2022] 446 ITR 1 (SC). 13 ITA.No.1852/PUN./2024 4.4. Referring to the decision of Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Natesan Precision Components Private Ltd., Chennai vs., DCIT

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

depreciation on the same goodwill cannot be disallowed in the latter Assessment Year 2020-21 under consideration. 9. The assessee craves leave to add, to modify to delete or to amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Assessee has also raised the following additional ground : “The impugned revision order passed u/s 263 of the Income

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. RENU ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.353/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant V Renu Electronics Private Commissioner Of S Limited, S.No.2/6, Near Baner Income Tax, Circle-5, Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune. Pune – 411045. Pan: Aaacr8741G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.18/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant V Renu Electronics Private Commissioner Of S Limited, S.No.2/6, Near Baner Income Tax, Circle-5, Telephone Exchange, Baner, Pune. Pune – 411045. Pan: Aaacr8741G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Two Appeals Ita No.353/Pun/2024 Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection C.O. No.18/Pun/2024 Filed By The

section 142(3) had disallowed Rs.6,48,164/- on account of depreciation and disallowed Rs.98,42,886/- which were claimed

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

42,39,571/- was claimed as revenue expenditure. However, the Assessing Officer had treated the same as capital expenditure and allowed the depreciation thereon. The explanation given before the Assessing Officer is that the expenditure was incurred to improve the existing products. The true nature of the expenditure had not been doubted CO No.12/PUN/2024 by the Assessing Officer. Undisputedly

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

42,39,571/- was claimed as revenue expenditure. However, the Assessing Officer had treated the same as capital expenditure and allowed the depreciation thereon. The explanation given before the Assessing Officer is that the expenditure was incurred to improve the existing products. The true nature of the expenditure had not been doubted\n\n7\nITA No.127/PUN/2024\nITA No.333/PUN/2024\nITA No.96/PUN/2024

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

42,39,571/- was claimed as revenue expenditure. However, the Assessing Officer had treated the same as capital expenditure and allowed the depreciation thereon. The explanation given before the Assessing Officer is that the expenditure was incurred to improve the existing products. The true nature of the expenditure had not been doubted CO No.12/PUN/2024 by the Assessing Officer. Undisputedly

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

42,39,571/- was claimed as revenue expenditure. However, the Assessing Officer had treated the same as capital expenditure and allowed the depreciation thereon. The explanation given before the Assessing Officer is that the expenditure was incurred to improve the existing products. The true nature of the expenditure had not been doubted CO No.12/PUN/2024 by the Assessing Officer. Undisputedly

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

42,03,113/- being depreciation in respect of investment in HTM category held by the bank, though the same is of capital nature and not to be depreciated as per cost or market price. 2. On the fact and the circumstances of the case and in the law, the CIT (A) has erred in allowing the claim of carry forward

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

42,03,113/- being depreciation in respect of investment in HTM category held by the bank, though the same is of capital nature and not to be depreciated as per cost or market price. 2. On the fact and the circumstances of the case and in the law, the CIT (A) has erred in allowing the claim of carry forward

JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

42,03,113/- being depreciation in respect of investment in HTM category held by the bank, though the same is of capital nature and not to be depreciated as per cost or market price. 2. On the fact and the circumstances of the case and in the law, the CIT (A) has erred in allowing the claim of carry forward

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation for set off in the subsequent years. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred by the CIT(A) in para 5.4 of the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity in the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) and we agree with the same. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is justified