ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, 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

45,99,312/-. Return processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently, case selected for Compulsory Manual Scrutiny followed by validly serving notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. So far as the issue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, we note that ld. AO had examined the issue of subsidy received by the assessee from

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

45,99,312/-. Return processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently, case selected for Compulsory Manual Scrutiny followed by validly serving notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. So far as the issue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, we note that ld. AO had examined the issue of subsidy received by the assessee from

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

45,99,312/-. Return processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently, case selected for Compulsory Manual Scrutiny followed by validly serving notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. So far as the issue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, we note that ld. AO had examined the issue of subsidy received by the assessee from

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

45,99,312/-. Return processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. Subsequently, case selected for Compulsory Manual Scrutiny followed by validly serving notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. So far as the issue raised in the instant appeal is concerned, we note that ld. AO had examined the issue of subsidy received by the assessee from

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

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”].

45,400/- in F.Y. 2006-07. The assessee has also capitalized interest of Rs. 89,65,775/- towards cost of construction. The sale value of the property is Rs. 3i00,00,000/-. The property (building) was given on rent to various schools from 01.06.2008. The assessee has shown income from business in return of income. The AO sought to invoked

ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUNGNALAYA & RESEARCH CENTER,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

4. Subsequent to the impugned order dated 24 May 2019 passed by the ITAT, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided Civil Appeal and confirmed the decision of this Court denying benefits under Section 10(23C) (via) to the assessee. This decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was, thus, not before the ITAT at the relevant time when

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section (4) to mean the amount which bears to the profits of the business of the undertaking, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such articles or things or computer software bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the undertaking. 11 ITA Nos.2395 & 2624/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 The Co-ordinate Bench opined when

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section (4) to mean the amount which bears to the profits of the business of the undertaking, the same proportion as the export turnover in respect of such articles or things or computer software bears to the total turnover of the business carried on by the undertaking. 11 ITA Nos.2395 & 2624/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 The Co-ordinate Bench opined when

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

45 and 46 of the Paper Book. A perusal of the reply\ngiven DSIR clearly indicates that the assessee company was granted approval in\nForm 3CM for the concerned period. Therefore, we find merit in the argument of\nthe Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the weighted deduction was rightly allowed\nby the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.\n36.\nWe find

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

45 and 46 of the Paper Book. A perusal of the reply\ngiven DSIR clearly indicates that the assessee company was granted approval in\nForm 3CM for the concerned period. Therefore, we find merit in the argument of\nthe Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the weighted deduction was rightly allowed\nby the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.\n36.\nWe find

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

45 and 46 of the Paper Book. A perusal of the reply\ngiven DSIR clearly indicates that the assessee company was granted approval in\nForm 3CM for the concerned period. Therefore, we find merit in the argument of\nthe Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the weighted deduction was rightly allowed\nby the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.\n36. We find

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

45 and 46 of the Paper Book. A perusal of the reply\ngiven DSIR clearly indicates that the assessee company was granted approval in\nForm 3CM for the concerned period. Therefore, we find merit in the argument of\nthe Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the weighted deduction was rightly allowed\nby the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.\n36.\nWe find

ZF STEERING GEAR (INDIA) LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14

45,47,845/- 3. Aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). 4. In this case the assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal. The additional ground of appeal No. 1 is taken along with grounds No. 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal in the appeal memo filed

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE , PANVEL vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PVT. LTD, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 595/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 251 of the Act vis-à-vis claim of depreciation on knowhow, trademark and patents, which was allowed by the Assessing Officer. The objection of CIT(A) was that two-fold that it was neither owned nor used by the assessee and the cost of acquisition of intangible assets was also incorrectly taken for the purpose of depreciation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

45 pm. 3.2 In course of the search, a diary was seized (Annexure A, Item No. 3), which included two pages in which certain 8 ITA.No.1375/PUN./2024 (Tapadiya Construction Ltd.) details concerning 12 rowhouse purchasers were jotted down. The entries were not made by the any of the management personal, nor the diary was found within the control

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

4), (5), (6) and (7) to section 9(1)(i). When we examine the factual matrix under consideration in the hue of the judgment in Vodafone International, it becomes overt that the facts of both the cases are poles apart. In that case, the question was whether the shares of the foreign company, deriving value from assets situated in India