DCIT CIRCLE 8 , PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

58,297/-. Resultantly, no weighted deduction is admissible in respect of expenditure incurred outside India amounting to Rs.9,61,80,237/-. 16. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the mandate of section 35 with the caption Expenditure on scientific research Clause (iv) of section 35(1) provides for deduction of expenditure on scientific nature "in respect

DCIT,CIRCLE-8 , PUNE vs. MAHALE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

58,297/-. Resultantly, no weighted deduction is admissible in respect of expenditure incurred outside India amounting to Rs.9,61,80,237/-. 16. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the mandate of section 35 with the caption Expenditure on scientific research Clause (iv) of section 35(1) provides for deduction of expenditure on scientific nature "in respect

MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

58,297/-. Resultantly, no weighted deduction is admissible in respect of expenditure incurred outside India amounting to Rs.9,61,80,237/-. 16. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the mandate of section 35 with the caption Expenditure on scientific research Clause (iv) of section 35(1) provides for deduction of expenditure on scientific nature "in respect

DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., PUNE

58,297/-. Resultantly, no weighted deduction is admissible in respect of expenditure incurred outside India amounting to Rs.9,61,80,237/-.\n\n16. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the mandate of section 35 with the caption Expenditure on scientific research Clause (iv) of section 35(1) provides for deduction of expenditure on scientific nature \"in respect

M/S. PRECAST INDIA INFRASTURES PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.293/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Precast India Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 58B, Cdsa Campus Pune, Paud Road, Bavdhan Khurd Pune - 411021 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aafcp2784C

depreciation claim u/s. 32(1)(iia) amounting to Rs.1,58,69,783/-, Section 36(1)(iii) interest of Rs.25,96,135/- followed

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

58 (Delhi) had occasion to interpret the above provisions of section 32 r.w.s. 43(6) and section 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

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

58 (Delhi) had occasion to interpret the above provisions of section 32 r.w.s. 43(6) and section 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

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 relation to the income under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. It is not a panacea for all the tax related issues of amalgamation, so as to have application insofar as the other tax entitlements, privileges or benefits in the hands of the amalgamating company, are concerned. 14. Section 74 deals

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 relation to the income under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. It is not a panacea for all the tax related issues of amalgamation, so as to have application insofar as the other tax entitlements, privileges or benefits in the hands of the amalgamating company, are concerned. 14. Section 74 deals

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,RAIGAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PANVEL

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

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

58,689/- on account of CCR services. Before the DRP, the assessee filed additional evidences in support of its claim. The DRP sought remand report from the TPO and based on such remand report as submitted by the TPO, the DRP upheld the action of TPO in determining the ALP of CCR services cost as Nil, in 3 ITA No.725/PUN/2017

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.201/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

58,19,390. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to succeed as ld.CIT(A) observed that by no stretch of imagination can subsidies by way of refund of Sales Tax or Relief of Electricity Charges or Water Charges can be treated as an Aid to setting up of the industry of the assessee and since

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE vs. BHIKSHU GRANIMART, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

Depreciation 41,07,184/- Total Rs. 36,17,58,045/- 1.3 In the assessment proceedings the assessee furnished details along with supportings, explanations & clarifications as sought by the AO on 17.01.2018, 25.10.2019, 20.11.2019 & 04.12.2019. (copies enclosed as mentioned in Para (1) 2 above). 1.4 The AO in paras 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the Asst order alleges that the assessee

NITIN DWARKADAS NYATI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

58,748/- relates to insurance and Rs.12,78,739/- towards PMC property tax. He submitted that the amount of Rs.106,94,843/- also includes depreciation of Rs.23,25,150/-, GST on professional services availed of Rs.4,08,175/- and profession tax of Rs.2,500/-. Further, the exempt income which has been earned is on account of investment in the partnership

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. NITIN DWARKADAS NYATI, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Acit, Central Circle 2(3), Nitin Dwarkadas Nyati Pune Sr. No.103/129, Nyati Unitree, Vs. Yerwada, Nagar Road, Pune – 411006 Pan: Aabpn2601F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krishna V Gujarathi Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 15-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-12-2025 O R D E R

section 14A of the Act. It is also his submission that the disallowance, if any, u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should be applicable only to such expenditure which may have any nexus with earning exempt income and not extend the disallowance to expenses having direct relation to earning taxable income. 11. We find some force in the above arguments

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

section 56(2)(vii)(b)\ntowards the premium received from Wipro-Enterprise Limited(Wipro)\nand Ascent Private Equity Trust(Ascent). The details of shares and\nthe valuation are as under :\n\nSr.\nNo.\nName of the\nShareholder\nCCPS/equity\nshares\nissued\nNo.\nof Issue\nprice per\nshare\n(INR)\nAssessed\nprice per\nshare\n(INR)\nAmount\nAdded\n1 Ascent

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

depreciation claimed by the Appellant at the rate of 25% amounting ITA No.227/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14(A) Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., to Rs.91,00,069/- onintangible assets of Rs. 3,64.00,278/- under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 8. Solar Renewable Energy Incentive 8.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

58,47,391/- which was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that\nthe relevant R & D unit was not approved by DSIR u/s 35(2AB) and therefore, the\nassessee is not entitled to claim the deduction. He submitted that before the\nAssessing Officer it was clarified that the assessee had made an application before\nDSIR and merely because