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

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45.\nFurther, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

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

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

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

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45.\nFurther, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

SHRI BHOGAWATI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -1, TARABAI PARK

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.371/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd., Shahunagar(Parite) , Tal. Karveer Dist Kolhapur – 416 211 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaaas3731R

5A, the margin for risk and profits were embedded in the FRP. This would be a strong indicator that the FRP should be considered as the uncontrolled market price. All the elements of „uncontrolled market price‟ are present in the computation 3 A.Y. : 2015-16 Shri Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Kharkhana Ltd., of FRP. This discussion is necessary in the light

VIGHNAHAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (JUDICIAL (HQ),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

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

5A, by considering the statement of accounts, balance sheet and other relevant material supplied to the State Government for the purpose of deciding/fixing the final price/additional purchase price/SAP under this clause. The amount relatable to the profit component or sharing of profit/distribution of profit paid by the assessee, which would be appropriation of income, will not be allowed as deduction

VIGHNAHAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

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

5A, by considering the statement of accounts, balance sheet and other relevant material supplied to the State Government for the purpose of deciding/fixing the final price/additional purchase price/SAP under this clause. The amount relatable to the profit component or sharing of profit/distribution of profit paid by the assessee, which would be appropriation of income, will not be allowed as deduction

SANT TUKARAM SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5),, PUNE

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

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

depreciation and carry forward business losses may be recomputed in light of Ground No. 1. 3. The appellant craves right to add, alter, delete, modify or amend any change or all the above grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing.” 3. The ground No. 1(a) raised by the assessee challenges the action