M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

section 80IA(5) of the Act are concerned, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has considered the year of installation as initial assessment year while the assessee has claimed that the initial assessment year is the year in which the deduction is claimed by the assessee. He submitted that the unabsorbed losses and depreciation

JAIHIND NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- MALEGAON, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jaihind Nagari Sahkari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Malegaon. Patsanstha Maryadit, Main Road, Raunaqabad, Malegaon, Nashik- 423203. Pan : Aaaaj8229M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 28.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Accepting The Deposits From Its Members. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18

5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including 80P shall be allowed if the assessee fails to make such a claim in the return of income. Thus, there are twin conditions, viz., first, claiming deduction u/s 80P and second, claiming such deduction in the return of income. There is no dispute on the first condition, which has been

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 PUNE, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1255/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner L B Kunjir, Of Income Tax, V S.No.52/1 Swanand Circle-7, Pune. S Building, Shree Ram Hsg Society, Kharadi, Chandanagar, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabfl9816E Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri R.Y.Balawade – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 12/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order

section 80IA(5) of the Act the profit from eligible business for purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act need not be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 80IA(5) of the Act the profit from eligible business for purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act need not be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 80IA(5) of the Act the profit from eligible business for purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act need not be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 80IA(5) of the Act the profit from eligible business for purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act need not be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 80IA(5) of the Act the profit from eligible business for purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act need not be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

section 80IA(5) of the Act the profit from eligible business for purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act need not be computed after deduction of the notional brought forward losses and depreciation

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

depreciation of the amalgamating company in the hands of the amalgamated company. He found such provision as not covering long term capital loss. He also did not find any force in the contention of the assessee about the applicability of section 74 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) accorded his imprimatur to the view canvassed by the AO. 5

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

depreciation of the amalgamating company in the hands of the amalgamated company. He found such provision as not covering long term capital loss. He also did not find any force in the contention of the assessee about the applicability of section 74 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) accorded his imprimatur to the view canvassed by the AO. 5

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including 80P shall be allowed if the assessee fails to make such a claim in the return of income. Thus, there are twin conditions, viz., first, claiming deduction u/s 80P and second, claiming such deduction in the return of income. There is no dispute on the first condition, which has been

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

5), which stipulates that no deduction under other sections including 80P shall be allowed if the assessee fails to make such a claim in the return of income. Thus, there are twin conditions, viz., first, claiming deduction u/s 80P and second, claiming such deduction in the return of income. There is no dispute on the first condition, which has been

GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, vide order u/sec.143(1), Assessee’s claim for benefit of ITA No.38/PUN/2025 [A] lower tax as per section 115BBA was denied on the ground that Form No.10-IC was not filed electronically. The relevant section is reproduced as under : Section 115BAA as under : “115BAA. (1) Notwithstanding anything

SATYAM TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. BREACH OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without verifying to the fact whether the Appellant has settled the appeal in Vivad se Vishwas. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without

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

5) cannot override the section 70(1) of the Act. The assessee incurs loss after claiming eligible depreciation. Hence section

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

5) cannot override the section 70(1) of the Act. The assessee incurs loss after claiming eligible depreciation. Hence section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. CUMMINS SALES & SERVICES (I),LTD,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS CUMMINS DIESELS SALES & SERVICE LTD,), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed

depreciation losses of demerged undertaking. Therefore, for this very reason, the Assessing Officer had denied the benefit of set-off of brought forward business losses. According to us, the reasoning of the Assessing Officer is consistent with object behind enactment of provisions of section 72A of the Act. Furthermore, sub-section (5

M/S KOLTE-PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2021-22

5 provisions of section 115BAA. Hence, when the assessee filed the application u/s 154 for giving the benefit of short credit of TDS, the CPC instead of giving credit for short deduction of TDS, has determined the tax liability by computing the tax at normal rate. He submitted that when the assessee has not withdrawn the option exercised earlier

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

5 Bilcare Packaging BPL – The USD USD 14394.23 Ltd. South Indian 21,700,000 21,700,000 Bank Ltd. 6 Bilcare Packaging BPL – The USD USD 6633.29 Ltd. Lakshmi Vilas 10,000,000 10,000,000 Bank Ltd. 7 Bilcare Packaging BPL – IDBI USD USD 4864.19 Ltd. Bank Ltd. 7,333,000 7,333,000 77,839.71 6. In respect