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

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

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

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation on assets, the assessee could not claim scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on the said expenditure of ₹ 2.01 crores. However, expenses incurred on purchase of fans and motor vehicles totaling ₹ 8,09,016/- were held to be allowed under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The CIT(A) further directed the revenue

COPPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation on assets, the assessee could not claim scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on the said expenditure of ₹ 2.01 crores. However, expenses incurred on purchase of fans and motor vehicles totaling ₹ 8,09,016/- were held to be allowed under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The CIT(A) further directed the revenue

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

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

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

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

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

Section 35(1) (iv) Income Tax Act, 1961 at least to the extent of One hundred percent. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of air conditioners, radiators, heat exchangers parts and components thereof which are used in cars and SUVs and in providing