ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

48,161/- under the head sale of sales tax benefit as power generation receipts, on which deduction under section 80IA of the Act was claimed. The Assessing Officer show caused the assessee as to why deduction be allowed under section 80IA of the Act when the receipts of sale of sales tax benefit were not derived from the business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

48,161/- under the head sale of sales tax benefit as power generation receipts, on which deduction under section 80IA of the Act was claimed. The Assessing Officer show caused the assessee as to why deduction be allowed under section 80IA of the Act when the receipts of sale of sales tax benefit were not derived from the business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

48,161/- under the head sale of sales tax benefit as power generation receipts, on which deduction under section 80IA of the Act was claimed. The Assessing Officer show caused the assessee as to why deduction be allowed under section 80IA of the Act when the receipts of sale of sales tax benefit were not derived from the business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

48,161/- under the head sale of sales tax benefit as power generation receipts, on which deduction under section 80IA of the Act was claimed. The Assessing Officer show caused the assessee as to why deduction be allowed under section 80IA of the Act when the receipts of sale of sales tax benefit were not derived from the business

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 11(1)(a) of the Act, yet depreciation is to be allowed on such assets. 48. We also find

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 11(1)(a) of the Act, yet depreciation is to be allowed on such assets. 48. We also find

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 11(1)(a) of the Act, yet depreciation is to be allowed on such assets. 48. We also find

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 11(1)(a) of the Act, yet depreciation is to be allowed on such assets. 48. We also find

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 11(1)(a) of the Act, yet depreciation is to be allowed on such assets. 48. We also find

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

section 11(1)(a) of the Act, yet depreciation is to be allowed on such assets. 48. We also find

M/S JOHNSON MATHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PVT. LTD,THANE vs. CIT II, THANE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.4368/M/2011 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.-6A, Midc Industrial Estate, Taloja, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Raigad, Maharashtra – 410208 …. Pan : Aabcj1620M Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Thane …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Smt. Vasanti Patel प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Kumar, Cit घोषणा की तारीख / सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2018

section 43(6) of the Act; h) Corporate issue of expenses pertaining to increase in share capital.” 14. The Tribunal further decided the issue of allocation of value of consideration to the two lands i.e. Panki and Taloja. In respect of land at Panki, the conclusion is in para 48 of the order of Tribunal, which reads as under:- “48

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD),PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

depreciation under section 32 of the Act should be allowed on capitalized Project Assistance Technical Fees. 7. First, we take up the appeal of assessee. The issue raised in the appeal filed by assessee is against transfer pricing adjustment made on account of international transactions entered into by the assessee. 8. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-9, PUNE vs. MERCEDES BENZ I PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER I PVT. LTD), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

depreciation under section 32 of the Act should be allowed on capitalized Project Assistance Technical Fees. 7. First, we take up the appeal of assessee. The issue raised in the appeal filed by assessee is against transfer pricing adjustment made on account of international transactions entered into by the assessee. 8. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee

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

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

48,240/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment. During the scrutiny proceedings the Assessing Officer made a reference to Transfer Pricing officer u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) Passed an order under section 92CA(3) of the Act on 30/07/2021 recommending an adjustment of Rs.27

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.998/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Dy.Commissioner Ctr Manufacturing Of Income Tax, Circle- Vs Industries Private Limited, 1(1), Pune. Nagar Road, Vadgaon Sheri, S.O. Pune City, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacc7256R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

48,780/-. 4.1 During the assessment proceedings AO observed that assessee had claimed payment of donation of Rs.30,00,000/- to the School of Human Genetics and Population Health, Calcutta. Assessee had claimed weighted deduction u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act of Rs.52,50,000/- for the said claim of donation. 4.2 AO has also partlydisallowed assessee’s claim

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

48 minutes before the limitation time. 9. It is further seen from the Tax Audit report, i.e. Form 3CD filed by the appellant that the said tax audit report was completed at 11:52:03 PM on 07.10.2022, i.e. just 8 minutes before the limitation time. Since the Form 10CCB can be issued by the Chartered Accountant only after

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