DESAI INFRA PROJECTS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. CIT(A), PUNE-11, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

801A(4)(i). 10) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, reiterated the same arguments as made before the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the CPC has no power to disallow the claim made u/sec.80IA

ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

depreciation of Rs. 38,68,211 /-. iii. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in interpreting the words “so arranged” used in section 80IA(10) to impose burden on AO to prove tax avoidance before invoking section 801A

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. ENTRATA INDIA PVT. LTD, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

depreciation of Rs. 38,68,211 /-. iii. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in interpreting the words “so arranged” used in section 80IA(10) to impose burden on AO to prove tax avoidance before invoking section 801A

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

801A(4) on similar facts and no disallowance was made. 31. The above discussion suggests that Hon'ble Courts as well as Hon'ble Tribunal on various occasions have held that each unit should be considered as separate undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 80IA and the deduction should be computed independently for each unit and not on consolidated basis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAMEER B.LADKAT,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Shri Gautam B. Ladkat, 36, Somwar Peth, Pune-411 011. Pan :Aafpl4838C ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

depreciation pertaining to windmill, which were set off in earlier year against other business income was deserved to be upheld. 40. The CBDT vide Circular No.1/2016, dated 1502.2016 has also clarified situation of claim of deduction under section 801A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GAUTAM B.LADKAT,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Shri Gautam B. Ladkat, 36, Somwar Peth, Pune-411 011. Pan :Aafpl4838C ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

depreciation pertaining to windmill, which were set off in earlier year against other business income was deserved to be upheld. 40. The CBDT vide Circular No.1/2016, dated 1502.2016 has also clarified situation of claim of deduction under section 801A

ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-6, PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPERS LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

depreciation pertaining to windmill, which were set off in earlier year against other business income was deserved to be upheld. 40. The CBDT vide Circular No.1/2016, dated 1502.2016 has also clarified situation of claim of deduction under section 801A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. SHRI GAUTAM B. LADKAT,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1358/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation related to a period before the 'Initial Assessment Year'. The AO has also in disallowing the deduction relied on the reasoning of the Assessment Order for AY 12-13. 4.4 I find that on the same facts and issues in Appellant's own case for AY 12-13 the CIT(A)-4 has held at Para 5.3.2 as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. SHRI SAMEER B. LADKAR,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1358/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation related to a period before the 'Initial Assessment Year'. The AO has also in disallowing the deduction relied on the reasoning of the Assessment Order for AY 12-13. 4.4 I find that on the same facts and issues in Appellant's own case for AY 12-13 the CIT(A)-4 has held at Para 5.3.2 as under

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2013- 14 and I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form for the Assessment Year 2013-14. GANESH SHAMRAO RAKH CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE" 16. The impugned notices in the connected Petitions are also similar

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

depreciation of each windmill which has already been set off against other business income of the assessee, cannot be notionally brought forward, as done by the assessing officer. The appellant has claimed that similar disallowance was made by the learned A.O. in the earlier years but the said action of the assessing officer has not been upheld at the level

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

depreciation of each windmill which has already been set off against other business income of the assessee, cannot be notionally brought forward, as done by the assessing officer. The appellant has claimed that similar disallowance was made by the learned A.O. in the earlier years but the said action of the assessing officer has not been upheld at the level

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

depreciation of each windmill which has already been set off against other business income of the assessee, cannot be notionally brought forward, as done by the assessing officer. The appellant has claimed that similar disallowance was made by the learned A.O. in the earlier years but the said action of the assessing officer has not been upheld at the level

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

depreciation of each windmill which has already been set off against other business income of the assessee, cannot be notionally brought forward, as done by the assessing officer. The appellant has claimed that similar disallowance was made by the learned A.O. in the earlier years but the said action of the assessing officer has not been upheld at the level

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

depreciation of each windmill which has already been set off against other business income of the assessee, cannot be notionally brought forward, as done by the assessing officer. The appellant has claimed that similar disallowance was made by the learned A.O. in the earlier years but the said action of the assessing officer has not been upheld at the level

M/S. ROHAN & RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE,,PUNE vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

depreciation on the above asset. g. Without prejudice, in view of the above grounds, the asst. could not be considered as erroneous as the assessee's claim was fully supported by proper reasoning. 3] The learned CIT was not justified in setting aside the asst. simply on the ground that the AO did not make the enquiries on the above

M/S. PADMAWATI WING ENERGY PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section (2). He submitted that the assessee chose A.Y. 2004-05 as initial A.Y being the first year in which it claimed deduction u/s. 80IA and therefore, losses/depreciation beginning from A.Y. 2004-05 alone could only be brought forward and set off. Depreciation of the preceding A.Y. 2002-03 could not have been notionally brought forward and set off against

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