FRANCOIS COMPRESSOR INDIA 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, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2504/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ………. अपीलाथ" / Francois Compressor India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.147/1(New), Lavale Road, Appellant Pirangut, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune – 412115. Pan : Aabcf0496K. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (2), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah. Revenue By : Shri Amol Kamat. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dt.31.08.2017 Passed Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under : The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Sale

section 43(1) and (6) of the Income tax Act, the depreciation is to be allowed on the actual cost of the asset less all depreciation actually allowed in respect thereof in earlier years. Thus, where the cost of the asset subsequently goes up because of devaluation, whatever might have been the position in the earlier year, it is always

AESSEAL INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

section 43A were not applicable as no assets were imported by using ECB loan. It was furthered contended that the loss so computed is allowable as revenue expenditure placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Iron & Steel Ltd., 231 ITR 285 (SC). It was further submitted that the term

AESSEAL INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

section 43A were not applicable as no assets were imported by using ECB loan. It was furthered contended that the loss so computed is allowable as revenue expenditure placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Tata Iron & Steel Ltd., 231 ITR 285 (SC). It was further submitted that the term

HUECO ELECTRONICS (I) PVT.LTD,(NOW KNOWN AS HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS PUNE (I) PVT.LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.02/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

depreciable assets using foreign currency loans and adjusted the foreign exchange fluctuation with cost of asset. The Hon. Apex Court on these set of facts held that section 43A is inapplicable as the same was introduced later and also held that the manner of repayment of loan cannot affect the cost of asset so acquired. The above observation was given

M/S. CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

section 43A of the Income Tax Act is only relating to the foreign exchange rate fluctuation in respect of assets acquired from a country outside India by using foreign currency loans which is not applicable to the indigenous assets acquired out of foreign currency loans. As stated earlier, the appellant had borrowed Term Loan in foreign currency for construction

M/S. CLASSIC CITI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon. Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon.

section 43A of the Income Tax Act is only relating to the foreign exchange rate fluctuation in respect of assets acquired from a country outside India by using foreign currency loans which is not applicable to the indigenous assets acquired out of foreign currency loans. As stated earlier, the appellant had borrowed Term Loan in foreign currency for construction