KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

depreciation charged on various assets is to be proportionately allowed as expenditure under section 57(iii) of the Act since

NIHILENT TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

depreciation, whichever is lower.‖ 8. We find that the decision rendered by AAR in the case of Rastriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (supra) and the order of Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd. (supra) are unanimous in the manner of computation of book profits, as provided in clause (iii) to Explanation 1 of section 115JB

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12. Question No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is covered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC v/s. DCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not accepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this question also

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD6(1), PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the\nassessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA\nNo

depreciation etc.\"\n\nNo question of law, therefore, arises in this respect.\n\n12.\nQuestion No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is\ncovered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC_v/s.\nDCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not\naccepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this\nquestion

ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the\nassessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA\nNo

depreciation etc.\"\nNo question of law, therefore, arises in this respect.\n12.\nQuestion No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is\ncovered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC_v/s.\nDCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not\naccepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this\nquestion also

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(1), PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the\nassessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA\nNo

depreciation etc.\"\nNo question of law, therefore, arises in this respect.\n12.\nQuestion No.3 itself records that the issue at hand is\ncovered by the decision of this Court in case of HDFC_v/s.\nDCIT reported in 366 ITR 505 but that, the department has not\naccepted the decision of the High Court. In that view, this\nquestion also

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

depreciation (UAD) of earlier years which have already been set off against the other income of the assessee, for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, 1961 thereby ignoring the provisions of section 80IA(5) ? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified

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

depreciation (UAD) of earlier years which have already been set off against the other income of the assessee, for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, 1961 thereby ignoring the provisions of section 80IA(5) ? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified

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

depreciation (UAD) of earlier years which have already been set off against the other income of the assessee, for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, 1961 thereby ignoring the provisions of section 80IA(5) ? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified

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

depreciation (UAD) of earlier years which have already been set off against the other income of the assessee, for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, 1961 thereby ignoring the provisions of section 80IA(5) ? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified

JAYNT VASUDEO ARADHYE,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.683/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Villa No.25, Indradhanu, Laxmi Peth, Vishnu Mill Compound, Solapur- 413001. Pan : Aappa8903M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2022-23 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. The Cpc Was Not Correct Both Factually & Legally In Not Considering The Claim Of Brought Forwarded Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs 27,78,028/-. 11. Section 143(1) As It Stands On The Statute Books As On Today, Does Not Permit Either Cpc Or The Ao To Make Such Adjustments As They Are Beyond The Scope Of The Said Section.

57 or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 80CCD or section 80JJAA; (ii) without set off of any loss, - (a) carried forward or depreciation

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

57,41,188 has been claimed in the AY 2008-09, despite of the fact that the depreciation claim on other assets, amounting to Rs.7,12,04,732, also included assets acquired in years subsequent to the AY 2003-04 including the current AY i.e. 2008-09. Not following Rule of consistency 3. Erred in disallowing depreciation on intangible

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD.,, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

57,41,188 has been claimed in the AY 2008-09, despite of the fact that the depreciation claim on other assets, amounting to Rs.7,12,04,732, also included assets acquired in years subsequent to the AY 2003-04 including the current AY i.e. 2008-09. Not following Rule of consistency 3. Erred in disallowing depreciation on intangible

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

57,41,188 has been claimed in the AY 2008-09, despite of the fact that the depreciation claim on other assets, amounting to Rs.7,12,04,732, also included assets acquired in years subsequent to the AY 2003-04 including the current AY i.e. 2008-09. Not following Rule of consistency 3. Erred in disallowing depreciation on intangible