SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

80-IE is that such deduction must be claimed in a return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. In one sense, section 80AC is an exception to section 80A(5), making the mandate of the latter section more stringent in the prescribed cases. Whereas other deductions of Part C of Chapter VI-A, including section 80P, can be claimed

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

80-IE is that such deduction must be claimed in a return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. In one sense, section 80AC is an exception to section 80A(5), making the mandate of the latter section more stringent in the prescribed cases. Whereas other deductions of Part C of Chapter VI-A, including section 80P, can be claimed

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

section 80-IA, thus, was in accordance with said provisions and as such there was no 10. In this view of the matter and being consistent with the view taken by the co-ordinate bench, which is further supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Dewan Kraft Systems Pvt Ltd (supra

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

section 80-IA, thus, was in accordance with said provisions and as such there was no 10. In this view of the matter and being consistent with the view taken by the co-ordinate bench, which is further supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Dewan Kraft Systems Pvt Ltd (supra

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

section 80-IA, thus, was in accordance with said provisions and as such there was no 10. In this view of the matter and being consistent with the view taken by the co-ordinate bench, which is further supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Dewan Kraft Systems Pvt Ltd (supra

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

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

section 80-IA, thus, was in accordance with said provisions and as such there was no 10. In this view of the matter and being consistent with the view taken by the co-ordinate bench, which is further supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Dewan Kraft Systems Pvt Ltd (supra

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

section 80-IA, thus, was in accordance with said provisions and as such there was no 10. In this view of the matter and being consistent with the view taken by the co-ordinate bench, which is further supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Dewan Kraft Systems Pvt Ltd (supra

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

80-IA, thus, was in accordance with said provisions and as such there was no 10. In this view of the matter and being consistent with the view taken by the co-ordinate bench, which is further supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Dewan Kraft Systems Pvt Ltd (supra

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Section 80 prohibiting carry forward of depreciation computed based on return filed under Section 139(4). So much so, in our view

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

depreciation should be allowed at the rate applicable to plant and machinery. We do not see any illegality and perversity in the decision of this Tribunal in the earlier assessment year 2001-02. Even the ld. CIT(A) only followed the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2001-02 in deciding the issue. Therefore

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

depreciation of Rs.27,20,59,980/- not made by the assessee in its original return as well as revised return of income ?‖ 37. Ground of appeal no.1 challenges the correctness of decision of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the performance guarantee is not an international transaction. The relevant findings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

depreciation of Rs.27,20,59,980/- not made by the assessee in its original return as well as revised return of income ?‖ 37. Ground of appeal no.1 challenges the correctness of decision of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the performance guarantee is not an international transaction. The relevant findings

BLUE STAR BUILDING MATERIAL PVT. LTD.,URAN PANVEL vs. ACIT CIRCLE PANVEL, PANVEL

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

Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

section 80 of 2 Income Tax At do apply to unabsorbed depreciation covered under section 32(2) of I T. Act. 10. The Appellant

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

depreciation in respect of such machinery or plant has been allowed or is allowable under the provisions of this Act in computing the total income of any person for any period prior to the date of the installation of machinery or plant by the person. Explanation 2.—Where in the case of a person, any machinery or plant

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

80-\nIA(4)(iii), as an alternate is not available.\n6.7.12\nAt this juncture, it is found pertinent to bring on record that the\nmigration of the principle and method of taxation, which is being adopted in this\nappellate order, as compared to the assessment order, on the aspect of taxing the\nimpugned portion u/s 28 as against section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

section 80-IA(5) – Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed – Held, Yes. In view of the above, the decision in Velayudhswamy has now attained finality and the assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s 80-IA. It is clear that initial year is not necessarily the year of setting up of the undertaking

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

section 80-IA(5) – Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed – Held, Yes. In view of the above, the decision in Velayudhswamy has now attained finality and the assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s 80-IA. It is clear that initial year is not necessarily the year of setting up of the undertaking

MAHATMA PHULE GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKAR PAT SANSTHA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. PCIT-1, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Mahatma Phule Gramin Bigarsheti Pcit-1, Pune Sahakar Pat Sanstha Vs. A/P Hattiwade, Ajara, Kolhapur – 416505 Pan: Aaaam2608K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2026 O R D E R

depreciation and investment allowance as referred to in sections 32 and 32A respectively, the Commissioner was justified in invoking revision under section 263 of the Act. The relevant observations of Hon’ble High Court from para 10 to 16 read as under: “10. The law on exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is settled by the decision

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 and investment allowance of earlier years in respect of the new industrial undertaking, ship or approved hotel will be taken into account in determining the quantum of deduction admissible under the new section 80