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

6. The PCIT Vs. M/s. Welspun Steel Ltd. – Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1743, 1744, 1834/2016 and ITA No.15/2017, dated 26.02.2019 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and have carefully gone through the submissions as well as the decisions/judgments relied on by both the sides. The issue before us is regarding the taxability

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

6. The PCIT Vs. M/s. Welspun Steel Ltd. – Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1743, 1744, 1834/2016 and ITA No.15/2017, dated 26.02.2019 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and have carefully gone through the submissions as well as the decisions/judgments relied on by both the sides. The issue before us is regarding the taxability

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

6. The PCIT Vs. M/s. Welspun Steel Ltd. – Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1743, 1744, 1834/2016 and ITA No.15/2017, dated 26.02.2019 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and have carefully gone through the submissions as well as the decisions/judgments relied on by both the sides. The issue before us is regarding the taxability

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

6. The PCIT Vs. M/s. Welspun Steel Ltd. – Income Tax Appeal Nos. 1743, 1744, 1834/2016 and ITA No.15/2017, dated 26.02.2019 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us and have carefully gone through the submissions as well as the decisions/judgments relied on by both the sides. The issue before us is regarding the taxability

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Section 43(6) of the IT Act 1961\nestablishes that the depreciation on goodwill as a result of amalgamation is\nnot allowable.\nResultantly, the claims made by the appellant in support of this ground do\nnot have any merit. Therefore, the addition made by assessing officer on\naccount of disallowance of claim of depreciation on goodwill as a result

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

6) Scale 75,\n(2004) 12 SCC 673 have held as fallows.\n\nThe phrase used is \"in accordance with\" and not \"under\". \"In\naccordance with\" in the context implies similarity or harmony but not\nidentity.\n\n(d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in\nassessee's own case

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

6) Scale 75,\n(2004) 12 SCC 673 have held as fallows.\nThe phrase used is \"in accordance with\" and not \"under\". \"In\naccordance with\" in the context implies similarity or harmony but not\nidentity.\n(d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in\nassessee's own case

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

6) Scale 75,\n(2004) 12 SCC 673 have held as fallows.\nThe phrase used is \"in accordance with\" and not \"under\". \"In\naccordance with\" in the context implies similarity or harmony but not\nidentity.\n(d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in\nassessee's own case

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

iii) Avinash R. Mahamuni vs. ITO vide ITA No.1582/PUN/2018 order dated 30.04.2019 for assessment year 2011-12 iv) Abhijit Despande vs. DCIT vide ITA No 492/PUN/2018 order dated 03.05.2019 for assessment year 2010-11 17. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that when objections were rejected on 07.03.2022 and the re-assessment order was passed

M/S GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

iii). It is further respectfully submitted that, as per explanation 5 to the said clause (ii) for the purpose of restricting the depreciation, (by 13 M/s Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd. applying 5th proviso to clause (ii) of sub section (1) of section 32 of the Income Tax Act,) the intangible assets do not include goodwill. This means the said

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

iii) by claiming the depreciation under the provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (b), the "business of manufacture or production of any article or thing" shall include the business of generation of electricity. (3) The loss referred

POONA BOTTLING COMPNAY PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1484/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

6 per cent. per annum to K in terms of the contract but never claimed deduction for payment of interest under section 36(1)(iii) a/the Act. The deduction claimed by the assessee in previous assessment years was due to the depreciation

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

depreciation were claimed by the appellant in AY 2012-13 as the assets were used for less than 6 months. Thus, the appeal in Ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.1501/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14 Ashok Narayan Bhosale (A) 8. Ground No.2 is relates to disallowance under Rule 14A of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) in para 6

SATYAM TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

iii) Sale of property reported in 26QB. Accordingly, notice(s) u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) were issued and served upon the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee filed its reply from time to time. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the assessment u/s 143(3) vide his order dated 21.12.2017 making

JAIHIND NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- MALEGAON, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jaihind Nagari Sahkari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Malegaon. Patsanstha Maryadit, Main Road, Raunaqabad, Malegaon, Nashik- 423203. Pan : Aaaaj8229M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 28.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Accepting The Deposits From Its Members. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18

6. On going through the above provision, it is crystallized that the requirement of filing return before the time u/s 139(1) is sine qua non for claiming deduction under the six sections (80-IA or 80- IAB or 80- IB or 80-IC or 80-ID or 80-IE). In other words, if a return is filed belatedly

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

depreciation from earlier years against the income so assessed. 3. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee trust is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 vide No.E1150, Pune dated 13-10-1987. The assessee is registered u/s.12A of the Act vide registration No.4597 dated 21-06-1989. The assessee trust was formed with various aims

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

depreciation allowance. A copy of the approval has been placed at page 25A of the paper book, which is letter dated 07- 12-2010 issued by the DSIR recognizing the assessee’s in-house R&D unit. 6. The case of the ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee was not eligible for weighted deduction on any amount spent

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

depreciation allowance. A copy of the approval has been placed at page 25A of the paper book, which is letter dated 07- 12-2010 issued by the DSIR recognizing the assessee’s in-house R&D unit. 6. The case of the ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee was not eligible for weighted deduction on any amount spent