M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

Depreciation expenses originally absorbed by the appellant in its Segmental P&L as per TP Report. Ground 6: Non-acceptance/exclusion of overseas comparable companies On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the AU based on the directions of Ld. DRP has erred in notaccepting/excluding the overseas comparable companies operating in the regions where

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" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 72A.” 6. Now before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in compliance to section 115BAB(7) assessee has first time opted for this concessional rate of tax u/s.115BAB of the Act in the return filed

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

depreciation claims; as the case may be, involving varying sums. We thus treat the first and foremost assessment year herein AY 2000-01 involving assessee’s and the Revenue’s cross appeals ITA Nos. 610 & 1015/Pun/2004 as the “lead” year. 3. We now advert to the foregoing twin “lead” cases and note that the assessee’s substantial ground

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

depreciation claims; as the case may be, involving varying sums. We thus treat the first and foremost assessment year herein AY 2000-01 involving assessee’s and the Revenue’s cross appeals ITA Nos. 610 & 1015/Pun/2004 as the “lead” year. 3. We now advert to the foregoing twin “lead” cases and note that the assessee’s substantial ground

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

depreciation claims; as the case may be, involving varying sums. We thus treat the first and foremost assessment year herein AY 2000-01 involving assessee’s and the Revenue’s cross appeals ITA Nos. 610 & 1015/Pun/2004 as the “lead” year. 3. We now advert to the foregoing twin “lead” cases and note that the assessee’s substantial ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. COCA COLA INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

depreciation claims; as the case may be, involving varying sums. We thus treat the first and foremost assessment year herein AY 2000-01 involving assessee’s and the Revenue’s cross appeals ITA Nos. 610 & 1015/Pun/2004 as the “lead” year. 3. We now advert to the foregoing twin “lead” cases and note that the assessee’s substantial ground

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

depreciation claims; as the case may be, involving varying sums. We thus treat the first and foremost assessment year herein AY 2000-01 involving assessee’s and the Revenue’s cross appeals ITA Nos. 610 & 1015/Pun/2004 as the “lead” year. 3. We now advert to the foregoing twin “lead” cases and note that the assessee’s substantial ground

ADDL.CIT RANGE-1, PUNE, PUNE vs. COCA COLA INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

depreciation claims; as the case may be, involving varying sums. We thus treat the first and foremost assessment year herein AY 2000-01 involving assessee’s and the Revenue’s cross appeals ITA Nos. 610 & 1015/Pun/2004 as the “lead” year. 3. We now advert to the foregoing twin “lead” cases and note that the assessee’s substantial ground

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

depreciation claims; as the case may be, involving varying sums. We thus treat the first and foremost assessment year herein AY 2000-01 involving assessee’s and the Revenue’s cross appeals ITA Nos. 610 & 1015/Pun/2004 as the “lead” year. 3. We now advert to the foregoing twin “lead” cases and note that the assessee’s substantial ground

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

depreciation claims; as the case may be, involving varying sums. We thus treat the first and foremost assessment year herein AY 2000-01 involving assessee’s and the Revenue’s cross appeals ITA Nos. 610 & 1015/Pun/2004 as the “lead” year. 3. We now advert to the foregoing twin “lead” cases and note that the assessee’s substantial ground

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

depreciation claims; as the case may be, involving varying sums. We thus treat the first and foremost assessment year herein AY 2000-01 involving assessee’s and the Revenue’s cross appeals ITA Nos. 610 & 1015/Pun/2004 as the “lead” year. 3. We now advert to the foregoing twin “lead” cases and note that the assessee’s substantial ground

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle - 1(1) 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Pune Tal Mulshi, Pune Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent : (Assessment Year: 2000-01) : (Assessment Year: 2001-02) : (Assessment Year: 2002-03) : (Assessment Year: 2003-04) : (Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit, Circle - 1(1) M/S. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Pmt Building 1107-1110, Pirangut Vs. Shankar Seth Road Tal Mulshi, Pune Swargate, Pune 411037 Pan: Aaacb8573G Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri R. Murlidhar Revenue By: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022

depreciation claims; as the case may be, involving varying sums. We thus treat the first and foremost assessment year herein AY 2000-01 involving assessee’s and the Revenue’s cross appeals ITA Nos. 610 & 1015/Pun/2004 as the “lead” year. 3. We now advert to the foregoing twin “lead” cases and note that the assessee’s substantial ground

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

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

90,129/- to be carry forward to next year without assigning any reason whatsoever your appellant prays for allowing such carry forward of losses and Unabsorbed Depreciation as per provision of law.” 3. Both the parties next submit that the assessee's latter appeal ITA.No.563/PUN/2024 for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 also pleads identical grounds since the only difference

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

90,129/- to be carry forward to next year without assigning any reason whatsoever your appellant prays for allowing such carry forward of losses and Unabsorbed Depreciation as per provision of law.” 3. Both the parties next submit that the assessee's latter appeal ITA.No.563/PUN/2024 for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 also pleads identical grounds since the only difference

KAPIL ALCOTECH LLP,AURANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 68 are absent, the addition made is 9 prima facie unjustified. He submitted that the CIT(A) / NFAC without understanding the evidence on record in a very cryptic order has sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer which is not correct. 16. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer

KRISHI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI,SOLAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, SOLAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.77/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 Krishi Utpanna Bazar Sammittee, The Asst. Commissioner Basveshwar Market Yard, Tal: Vs Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Akkalkot, Solapur – 413216. Solapur. Pan: Aaaak 1791 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Pune-10’S, Order Dated 06.11.2019For The Assessment Year 2008-09, Involving Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Levying The Penalty Of Rs.2,02,600/- By Passing Order U/S 271(1)(C) By Disregarding The Appellants Contention.”

90,165/- -Wrong claim of depreciation Rs.1,47,527/- The AO levied Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 30/06/2011 for the impugned wrong claims. 3. No one appeared for the appellant assessee. The appeal is decided Ex Party with the help of the Ld.DR. 3.1. We have studied the records and heard the Ld.DR