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

54,99,878/- and unabsorbed depreciation losses of Rs.3,47,20,047/- pertaining to demerged undertaking 3 under sub-section

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 139(1) of the Act, only depreciation loss of Rs. 12,69,0741- is allowable to be carried forward to the subsequent assessment year. Accordingly, the assessed business loss of Rs. 60,54

BALAJI UDYOG,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Balaji Udyog, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Jalgaon. J-81, Midc Area, Jalgaon- 425003. Pan : Aagfb2522E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay Kawadia Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit(A). Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Interest Paid To Partners Amounting To Rs.19,23,457/- U/S 40(B) Of The Act. He Specifically Erred In Law In Recasting The Capital Accounts Of The Partners On Account Of Non-Provision Of Depreciation In Books Of Account. 2) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding Disallowance Of Rs.1,13,286/-Being 10% Of The Various Expenses Debited To Profit & Loss Account.

section shall apply whether or not the assessee has claimed the deduction in respect of depreciation in computing his total income;” 11. In the instant case, the assessee by not claiming the depreciation in profit and loss account but crediting the same in computation of income has adopted a new device by showing more book profit and thereby crediting more

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

54,87,170/-. 3. Thereafter, assessment records were examined by ld. PCIT within the powers conferred u/s.263 of the Act and he observed that on certain immovable properties the assessee has shown rental income during the year and has claimed depreciation at Rs.81,24,101/- by observing that when income from let out property has been offered under the head

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. FLOWLINE SYSTEMS PVT LTD, NEW PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2168/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner V Flowline Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, S 401, 402, Bhoomi Landmark, Panvel. New Panvel, Dist-Raigad. Maharashtra – 410206. Pan: Aabcf1096R Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri A R Sakhalkar & Shri M.R.Dharmadhikari –Ar’S Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 14.08.2024 For A.Y.2021-22 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Issued By Adit(Cpc), Bangalore. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 37 claimed in return in schedule OI and audit report ITA No.2168/PUN/2024 [A] 5. The assessee filed rectification application which was rejected by ADIT(CPC), Bangalore. Aggrieved by the order u/s.154, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 5.1 The ld.CIT(A) in para 5.2 has held as under : “5.2 Ground of appeal No. 1 It is claimed

ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION),, PUNE

In the result, this appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.466/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Association Of Consulting Civil The Commissioner Of Income Engineers, Vs Tax, Exemption, Pune. Sthapathya Bhavan, Damani Complex, Datta Chowk, Solapur – 413 007. Pan: Aacaa 6603 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Depreciation - By Meeting sponsorship a/c 176,000.00 By booklet spons A/c 50,500.00 To Surplus Carried over to Balance Sheet By Advt. & Meeting spon 465,590.00 1,128,391.00 A/c 2,604,338.00 By stall rent 3,449,863.00 3,449,863.00 Thus, it is observed: F.Y Total Income Amount Spend on Surplus % Objects

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

AIR CONTRAL INDIA PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that ITAT, Delhi Bench in case of N.T.P.C. vs. DCIT [2012] 54 SOT 177 (URO) (Delhi) (Trib.), considered this decision while dealing with the activity of generation of electricity with respect of additional depreciation

SAHYADRI KARAD HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

54 Lokmanya PMT Bldg., Swargate, Pune Colony Paud Road, PIN – 411 009 Kothrud, Maharashtra. Pune - 411 004 PAN AALCS6720M. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod S. Shingte For Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of Hearing : 11.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These assessee's twin appeals ITA.Nos. 562 and 563/ PUN/2024, for assessment

SAHYADRI KARAD HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

54 Lokmanya PMT Bldg., Swargate, Pune Colony Paud Road, PIN – 411 009 Kothrud, Maharashtra. Pune - 411 004 PAN AALCS6720M. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod S. Shingte For Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of Hearing : 11.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These assessee's twin appeals ITA.Nos. 562 and 563/ PUN/2024, for assessment

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

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

depreciation should be allowed at the rate applicable to plant and machinery. We do not see any illegality and perversity in the decision of this Tribunal in the earlier assessment year 2001-02. Even the ld. CIT(A) only followed the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2001-02 in deciding the issue. Therefore

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

depreciation of Rs.27,20,59,980/- not made by the assessee in its original return as well as revised return of income ?‖ 37. Ground of appeal no.1 challenges the correctness of decision of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the performance guarantee is not an international transaction. The relevant findings

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

depreciation of Rs.27,20,59,980/- not made by the assessee in its original return as well as revised return of income ?‖ 37. Ground of appeal no.1 challenges the correctness of decision of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the performance guarantee is not an international transaction. The relevant findings

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, is an A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2008-09 intangible asset, therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation. We find that the facts and circumstances of the case made out in the case of Progressive Construction Ltd. (supra) before the Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal are identical and the issue decided therein is similar

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, is an A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2008-09 intangible asset, therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation. We find that the facts and circumstances of the case made out in the case of Progressive Construction Ltd. (supra) before the Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal are identical and the issue decided therein is similar

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, is an A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2008-09 intangible asset, therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation. We find that the facts and circumstances of the case made out in the case of Progressive Construction Ltd. (supra) before the Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal are identical and the issue decided therein is similar

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED , AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

54,68,920/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs.122,32,40,620/- by making disallowance of Rs.1,05,69,000/- u/s 2 14A r.w.s. 8D of the IT Rules. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 154 of the Act on account of mismatch in prepaid taxes