ASHOK NARAYAN BHOSALE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Narayan Bhosale, The Deputy Commissioner Of Ashok Narayan Bhosle Bunglow At Vs Income Tax, Kaveri Nagar, Pratham Housing Cirlce-8, Pune. Society, Wakad, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaspb 3588 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/03/2022

2. Revenue has challenged the Judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 1 June, 2015. Following question is presented for our consideration:— “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Assessee is entitled to 50% of the additional depreciation under Section

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 of the Customs Act shall be deemed to be the sale proceeds thereof. This explanation is an explanation to sub-section (2). In sub-section (2)(a ), it is made clear that all goods or merchandise other than those specified in clause (b ), which are exported out of India, the sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange

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”].

50 would apply even though no depreciation is claimed. The AO has computed depreciation on cost of acquisition of Rs. 2,36,47,980/- from F.Y. 2007-08 to 2012-13. This artificial computation of depreciation would result into change of income in earlier years. Even in case of commercial assets if no depreciation is claimed than provisions of section

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

50 ITR 1 (SC) held that onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. However, if the taxpayer disputes the levy of tax on the same then it is up to him to show either the receipt is not income, or it is exempt from taxation under

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

50 ITR 1 (SC) held that onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. However, if the taxpayer disputes the levy of tax on the same then it is up to him to show either the receipt is not income, or it is exempt from taxation under

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

50 ITR 1 (SC) held that onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. However, if the taxpayer disputes the levy of tax on the same then it is up to him to show either the receipt is not income, or it is exempt from taxation under

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

50 ITR 1 (SC) held that onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. However, if the taxpayer disputes the levy of tax on the same then it is up to him to show either the receipt is not income, or it is exempt from taxation under

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

50 ITR 1 (SC) held that onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. However, if the taxpayer disputes the levy of tax on the same then it is up to him to show either the receipt is not income, or it is exempt from taxation under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), PUNE vs. SANGHVI BEAUTY AND TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well\nas Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

50 of 2019)];\n\n4\nITA No.2120/PUN/2024 and\nCO No.08/PUN/2025\nSanghvi Beauty and Technologies Pvt. Ltd.\n(ab) \"trust\" means a trust established under the Indian Trusts Act,\n1882 (2 of 1882) or under any other law for the time being in force;]\n(b) \"venture capital company\", \"venture capital fund\" and \"venture\ncapital undertaking\" shall have the meanings respectively

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation for set off in the subsequent years. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred by the CIT(A) in para 5.4 of the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity in the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) and we agree with the same. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is justified

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 the subsequent assessment year and at that time the proviso to section 32 was also not there but right now with the insertion of such proviso, this right has been statutorily recognized. That as regards, whether such proviso would apply to past periods or not, the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court (supra.) which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

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)

2,06,05,222 Depreciation Ordinary 2012-13 1,86,65,117 1,86,65,117 Business Unabsorbed 2012-13 1,76,65,013 1,76,65,013 Depreciation Unabsorbed 2013-14 Depreciation 1,76,65,012 1,76,65,012 Unabsorbed 2014-15 Depreciation 1,50,99,342 1,50,99,342 Unabsorbed

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tar paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tar paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tar paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tar paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with

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

50 held in para 13, which reads as under :- ―13. In Oswal (supra) and Ansal Properties (supra), it was noticed that the Parliament had deleted the provision for terminal depreciation in respect of each asset that was previously allowed under Section 32(1)(c) and the taxation of balancing charge under Section 41(2