INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. SHRI. ULHAS MALLIKARJUN PATIL,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

65,775/- towards cost of construction. The sale value of the property is Rs. 3i00,00,000/-. The property (building) was given on rent to various schools from 01.06.2008. The assessee has shown income from business in return of income. The AO sought to invoked provisions of section 50 & 50C. The AO observed that the school building was constructed keeping

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation (“UD”) were required to be reduced for the purposes of Explanation (iii) to section 115JB of the Act, on a conservative and rational basis, the assessee, in its return of income for AY 2013-14 filed on 26th November 2013,reduced the amount of INR 300 crores in the ratio of BFL and UD (refer Page

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation (“UD”) were required to be reduced for the purposes of Explanation (iii) to section 115JB of the Act, on a conservative and rational basis, the assessee, in its return of income for AY 2013-14 filed on 26th November 2013,reduced the amount of INR 300 crores in the ratio of BFL and UD (refer Page

M/S. CARRARO INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1261/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Carraro India Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Limited, Pune B-2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon, Pune – 412 220 Maharashtra, India Pan : Aaacc5292M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1309/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Carraro India Private Pune Limited, B-2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon, Pune – 412 220 Maharashtra, India Pan : Aaacc5292M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri M.P. Lohia Revenue By Shri Shivraj B. Morey Date Of Hearing 14-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 15-07-2021

section 43A. As regards the question of additional depreciation, the same is admissible in respect of assets acquired on or after 1.4.2005. Patently, no additional depreciation can be allowed to the assessee in respect of loan taken in the year 2002 and the claim will be valid for the loan taken in foreign currency for the purchase of asset

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. CARRARO INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1261/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Carraro India Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Limited, Pune B-2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon, Pune – 412 220 Maharashtra, India Pan : Aaacc5292M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1309/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Carraro India Private Pune Limited, B-2/2, Midc, Ranjangaon, Pune – 412 220 Maharashtra, India Pan : Aaacc5292M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri M.P. Lohia Revenue By Shri Shivraj B. Morey Date Of Hearing 14-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 15-07-2021

section 43A. As regards the question of additional depreciation, the same is admissible in respect of assets acquired on or after 1.4.2005. Patently, no additional depreciation can be allowed to the assessee in respect of loan taken in the year 2002 and the claim will be valid for the loan taken in foreign currency for the purchase of asset

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

section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with

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

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

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

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

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

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/- on product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were incurred

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

section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act. 1961?\n\n2.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.1,04,77,500/-\non product development was incurred only for up-gradation of existing products without appreciating that the said expenses were

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

E-GAIN COMMUNICATIONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2675/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 E-Gain Communications Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Ltd., Office No.702, 7Th Floor, B-1, The Cerebrum It Park, Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyani Nagar, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacn9946R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune. [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 11.08.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Egain Communication

65,67,679 3. The assessee company sought to justify the consideration received for the above international transactions entered with its AE to be at arm’s length price (ALP). The assessee company also submitted Transfer Pricing (TP) study report adopting the Operating Profit/Operating Cost (OP/TC) as a Profit Level Indicator (PLI) for the transfer pricing study. The assessee company

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. MAHALAXMI INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

depreciation on luxury cars of Rs.21,36,823/- ignoring the fact that the Assessee could not furnish necessary evidence to show that the luxury cars were used wholly for business purpose to rule out personal use by directors of the company. 4. Whether, the assessee fulfills the requirement stipulated in Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 once

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

INDUS BIOTECH LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

65,049 under section 115-O of the Act to the Ld. AO\nwithout appreciating the fact that the said credit is also duly reflected in\nForm 26AS and relevant facts/documents are available on record with the\nLd. AO.\n4.2 The Appellant prays that the Ld. AO be directed to grant credit of DDT\nGround No. 5\n5.1 Without prejudice

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. MAHALAXMI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

depreciation on\nluxury car of Rs.32,42,484/- ignoring the fact that the Assessee could\nnot furnish necessary evidence to show that the luxury car were used\nwholly for business purpose to rule out personal use by directors of\nthe company.\nGrounds of Appeal subject to consent of the Assessee for deferment\n(α)\n(b)\nWhether, the assessee fulfills

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 PUNE, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1255/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner L B Kunjir, Of Income Tax, V S.No.52/1 Swanand Circle-7, Pune. S Building, Shree Ram Hsg Society, Kharadi, Chandanagar, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabfl9816E Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri R.Y.Balawade – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 12/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order

depreciation which required consideration under the provisions of Section 80IA(5) of I.T.Act 1961. Respectfully, following the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Pune Bench, Pune referred hereinabove the claim of the Appellant as regards to the grant of deduction u/s 80IA(4) of I.T.Act 1961 is in order and cannot be faulted with. 4.8 In view of the discussion