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 deems capital gain in respect of depreciable asset as short term capital gain. The ambit of section 50

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

50% depreciation in subsequent year. But the fact remains even without the aid of statutory amendment, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. case (supra.) had held that “the assessee can claim the remaining depreciation in the subsequent assessment years.” Now with the introduction to the proviso to Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK vs. TRAMBAK RUBBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, SINNAR, NASHIK

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

50%. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the disallowance of depreciation is covered under exception 10(c) as amendment to CBDT Circular 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and delete any ground (s) of appeal.” 3. Mr. Mehta invited my attention

PRIDE AND EXPERT PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (1) , PUNE

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

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

depreciation and the ld. A.O was correct in assessing the same as short term capital gain u/s 50 of the Act. 4 Pride & Expert Properties Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 5. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that as per basic requirement for invoking section

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

depreciable assets in each of the four classes of assets, namely, buildings, machinery, plant and furniture.‖‖ 71. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 88 taxmann.com 58 (Delhi) had occasion to interpret the above provisions of section 32 r.w.s. 43(6) and section 50

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), 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

depreciable assets in each of the four classes of assets, namely, buildings, machinery, plant and furniture.‖‖ 71. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 88 taxmann.com 58 (Delhi) had occasion to interpret the above provisions of section 32 r.w.s. 43(6) and section 50

PRADEEP KISANLAL BOOB,NASHIK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.189/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

depreciable asset as provided in section 50 of the Act. 9. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA vs. THE KARAD URBAN CO. OP. BANK LTD KARAD, KARAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation” on AFS securities charged to P&L Account in AY 2018-19 under the provisions of section 37 of the Act rejecting the claim of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) reversed the findings of the Ld. AO and allowed the claim of the assessee for the reasons reproduced above. Before us, the Ld. DR has argued

BLUE STAR BUILDING MATERIAL PVT. LTD.,URAN PANVEL vs. ACIT CIRCLE PANVEL, PANVEL

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

Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

50,99,342 Unabsorbed 2015-16 1,28,75,689 1,28,75,689 Depreciation 10. It is submitted as loss returns filed in the earlier years were within the stipulated time slot, the assessee has a statutory right given u/s. 72 to carry forward the said loss from one year to the following year and the assessing officer

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

50 (SC) was followed wherein it was held that it was not open to the Income Tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under Section 154 of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the issue of allowing of book loss or unabsorbed depreciation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

50 (SC) was followed wherein it was held that it was not open to the Income Tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under Section 154 of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the issue of allowing of book loss or unabsorbed depreciation

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

depreciation be allowed to be carried\nforward to AY 2021-22.\nInterest levied under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the\nAct\n21. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO\nerred in levying interest of INR 6,15,728 under Section 234A, INR\n78,50

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

50,000/- made to Sakal Social Foundation. (ix) With regard to claim for allowance of depreciation on windmill of Rs.56,11,914/-, the ld. CIT(A) held that civil construction and electrical work were undertaken for operation of windmills and are not separable, therefore, 8 allowed the depreciation at the rate applicable to plant and machinery following the decision

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

50,000/- for the said claim of donation. 4.2 AO has also partlydisallowed assessee’s claim of weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. AO restricted the disallowance of expenditure to the amounts specified in the report issued by DSIR. 5. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE-5,, PUNE vs. ROHAN AND RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and such right is a depreciable and assessee is entitled to claim depreciation under the Act. He placed on record decision of special bench at page no.353 of the Paper Book and submitted that the Special Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Progressive Constructions Ltd. held that the expenditure incurred

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE-5,, PUNE vs. ROHAN AND RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and such right is a depreciable and assessee is entitled to claim depreciation under the Act. He placed on record decision of special bench at page no.353 of the Paper Book and submitted that the Special Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Progressive Constructions Ltd. held that the expenditure incurred

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE-5,, PUNE vs. ROHAN AND RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

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

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and such right is a depreciable and assessee is entitled to claim depreciation under the Act. He placed on record decision of special bench at page no.353 of the Paper Book and submitted that the Special Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Progressive Constructions Ltd. held that the expenditure incurred

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