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

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

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

7A) prescribes\nthe certain conditions subject to which approval is to be granted. A close reading\nof the section r.w. Rule 6 would reveal that nowhere any time has been prescribed\nwithin which the application is required to be filed by the assessee company. Further,\nnowhere, any condition has been prescribed regarding cut off date from which the approval\ncould

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

7A) prescribes the certain conditions subject\nto which approval is to be granted. A close reading of the section r.w. Rule 6\nwould reveal that nowhere any time has been prescribed within which the\napplication is required to be filed by the assessee company. Further, nowhere, any\ncondition has been prescribed regarding cut off date from which the approval\ncould

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

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

7A) prescribes the certain conditions subject\nto which approval is to be granted. A close reading of the section r.w. Rule 6\nwould reveal that nowhere any time has been prescribed within which the\napplication is required to be filed by the assessee company. Further, nowhere, any\ncondition has been prescribed regarding cut off date from which the approval\ncould

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

7A) prescribes the certain conditions subject\nto which approval is to be granted. A close reading of the section r.w. Rule 6\nwould reveal that nowhere any time has been prescribed within which the\napplication is required to be filed by the assessee company. Further, nowhere, any\ncondition has been prescribed regarding cut off date from which the approval\ncould

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned thereafter in this section and in section 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year. Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant 9 Gopal Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. DEEPAK FOODS,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

7a). Further details are given as per Annexure-1 regarding the change in partners or members or in their profit sharing ratio. He argued that the CIT(A) rightly held that the assessee disclosed all the relevant details truly and fully during the course of assessment proceedings itself. He further argued that having disclosed fully and truly all the relevant

MAHLE BEHR INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

Section 35(1) (iv) Income Tax Act, 1961 at least to\nthe extent of One hundred percent.\n4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the\nbusiness of manufacture and sale of air conditioners, radiators, heat exchangers\nparts and components thereof which are used in cars and SUVs and in providing