PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

Depreciation Fund. The assessee pointed out that income and outgoing of three funds were recorded and posted as per directions of Government of Maharashtra from time to time. It was also pointed out that audit of entre transactions and activities of assessee were conducted by auditors appointed by Government of Maharashtra and it was a propriety audit. The audit report

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

Depreciation Fund. The assessee pointed out that income and outgoing of three funds were recorded and posted as per directions of Government of Maharashtra from time to time. It was also pointed out that audit of entre transactions and activities of assessee were conducted by auditors appointed by Government of Maharashtra and it was a propriety audit. The audit report

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

Depreciation Fund. The assessee pointed out that income and outgoing of three funds were recorded and posted as per directions of Government of Maharashtra from time to time. It was also pointed out that audit of entre transactions and activities of assessee were conducted by auditors appointed by Government of Maharashtra and it was a propriety audit. The audit report

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

Depreciation Fund. The assessee pointed out that income and outgoing of three funds were recorded and posted as per directions of Government of Maharashtra from time to time. It was also pointed out that audit of entre transactions and activities of assessee were conducted by auditors appointed by Government of Maharashtra and it was a propriety audit. The audit report

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

Depreciation Fund. The assessee pointed out that income and outgoing of three funds were recorded and posted as per directions of Government of Maharashtra from time to time. It was also pointed out that audit of entre transactions and activities of assessee were conducted by auditors appointed by Government of Maharashtra and it was a propriety audit. The audit report

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

Depreciation Fund. The assessee pointed out that income and outgoing of three funds were recorded and posted as per directions of Government of Maharashtra from time to time. It was also pointed out that audit of entre transactions and activities of assessee were conducted by auditors appointed by Government of Maharashtra and it was a propriety audit. The audit report

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

depreciation from book profits of the current year which are governed by section 40(b) does not arise. In support of his arguments, the ld. AR draws strengthen from the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shree Yogeshwar Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 1173/AHD/2014 for assessment year 2005-06 decided

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

depreciation from book profits of the current year which are governed by section 40(b) does not arise. In support of his arguments, the ld. AR draws strengthen from the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shree Yogeshwar Developers Vs. Income Tax Officer in ITA No. 1173/AHD/2014 for assessment year 2005-06 decided

DCIT, PUNE vs. QUICK HEAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

depreciation amounting to Rs. 2,05,87,500/-, the Ld AO has made the disallowance mainly on the following ground: i) Occupancy certificate from Municipal Corporation dtd. 26/11/2012 is in the name of Vijay Narayan Jalan. 3 ITA No.2031/PUN/2025, AY 2014-15 ii) The MSEB bill submitted by the assessee dated dtd. 05/10/2019 is of current period and the assessee

SAHYADRI KARAD HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

87,10,127/-, as disallowed in both the lower proceedings. 3 ITA.Nos.562 & 563/PUN./2024 4. We note in this factual backdrop that the learned lower appellate authority has upheld the CPC's action proceedings disallowing the assessee unabsorbed depreciation carried forward claim in A.Y. 2019-2020 as under : “The claim of the appellant that brought forward losses

SAHYADRI KARAD HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

87,10,127/-, as disallowed in both the lower proceedings. 3 ITA.Nos.562 & 563/PUN./2024 4. We note in this factual backdrop that the learned lower appellate authority has upheld the CPC's action proceedings disallowing the assessee unabsorbed depreciation carried forward claim in A.Y. 2019-2020 as under : “The claim of the appellant that brought forward losses

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

87,170/-. 3. Thereafter, assessment records were examined by ld. PCIT within the powers conferred u/s.263 of the Act and he observed that on certain immovable properties the assessee has shown rental income during the year and has claimed depreciation at Rs.81,24,101/- by observing that when income from let out property has been offered under the head ‘Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MAHARASHTRA WATER CONSERVATION CORPORATION,, AURANGABAD

Accordingly, the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is upheld and ground No. 2 raised in appeals by Revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 883 & 1568/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

87,34,681/- claimed by assessee as depreciation. Similarly in assessment year 2011-12, depreciation claimed by assessee to the tune of Rs.8,71,63,811/- was disallowed by the Assessing Officer for identical reasons. 3. Further, the assessee had disclosed Rs.2,64,222/- in assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.77,263/- in assessment year 2011-12 as income from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AURANGABAD vs. MAHARASHTRA WATER CONSERVATION CORPORATION,, AURANGABAD

Accordingly, the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is upheld and ground No. 2 raised in appeals by Revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 883 & 1568/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

87,34,681/- claimed by assessee as depreciation. Similarly in assessment year 2011-12, depreciation claimed by assessee to the tune of Rs.8,71,63,811/- was disallowed by the Assessing Officer for identical reasons. 3. Further, the assessee had disclosed Rs.2,64,222/- in assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.77,263/- in assessment year 2011-12 as income from

THE PUNYASHLOK AHILYADEVI HOLKAR SOLAPUR UNIVERSITY,,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1544/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Punyashlok Ahilyadevi Holkar The Assistant Solapur University Solapur, Vs Commissioner Of Income (Previously Known As Solapur Tax, Circle-2, Solapur. University), Solapur-Pune Highway, Kegaon, Solapur – 413 255. Pan: Aaals 0728 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sunil Ganoo – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-10, Pune, Dated 03.05.2016 For The A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1] In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T.[A] Has Grossly Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of Exemption Made By The Appellant Assessee U/S10[23C][Iiiab] Of The I.T. Act 1961. The Various Reasons Given By The Learned Cit[A] For Rejecting The Claim Of Exemption Made By The Appellant Assessee U/S 10[23C] [Iiiab] Of The I.T.Act 1961 Being Legally Unsustainable & Devoid Of Merits The Same May Please Be Vacated & The Exemption As Claimed May Please Be Granted To The Appellant Assessee.

Depreciation 71,87,443 Surplus 3,17,14,469 15,11,86,319 15,11,86,319 (d) As can be seen from the above, total receipt of the appellant from the various sources is at Rs.15,11,86,319/- out of it, the contribution from the Govt. is Rs.4,72,85,300/- in the form of Salary Grant which

M/S. MULA PRAVARA ELECTRIC CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY SSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1776/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

87 of 2010 dated 27/01/2011 ii. The Assessee society has given VRS 1522 employees. B. The reliance placed on Order dated 27/01/2011 of MERC by the both the Authorities is misplaced as said order is nonest as the same has been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal for electricity, Delhi (APTE) allowing the Appeal filed by the Assessee being Appeal

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