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 of ₹ 1,68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment

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 of ₹ 1,68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment

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 of ₹ 1,68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment

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 of ₹ 1,68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment

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 of ₹ 1,68,80,373/-, vide order dated 31.03.2010. The Commissioner of Income- tax-V, Pune vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 07.03.2011 set aside the assessment order for the year under consideration holding the same to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, with direction to Assessing Officer to frame assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHARP DESIGNERS & ENGINEERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

928/-. The section says unless the assessee files a return under section 139(1) within the due date, deduction under section 80IA / 80-IB / 80-IC /80- ID / 80-IE shall not be allowed and at the same time section 139(5) provides for filing a revised return, when the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement made

SHARP DESIGNERS AND ENGINEERS INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

928/-. The section says unless the assessee files a return under section 139(1) within the due date, deduction under section 80IA / 80-IB / 80-IC /80- ID / 80-IE shall not be allowed and at the same time section 139(5) provides for filing a revised return, when the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement made

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHARP DESIGNER AND ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

928/-. The section says unless the assessee files a return under section 139(1) within the due date, deduction under section 80IA / 80-IB / 80-IC /80- ID / 80-IE shall not be allowed and at the same time section 139(5) provides for filing a revised return, when the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement made

ASSISTANT OINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PYC HINDU GYMKHANA,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.179/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

depreciation on such expenditure does not arise as it amounts double deduction in respect of the same expenditure. Accordingly, the net profit of Rs.1,22,57,038/- ( Rs.3,83,02,928/- (-) Rs.2,60,45,890/-) is added back to the total income of the assessee. The penalty proceedings under section

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

depreciation in the fight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not concerned with the same. 45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

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

depreciation in the fight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not concerned with the same. 45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

SMT. SUNITA G. DESAI,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, RATNAGIRI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2761/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt.Sunitag.Desai, The Income Tax Officer, Master Plaza, Jakadevi, Vs Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Khalgaon, Ratnagiri. Pan: Abopd 2868 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2022 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)-2, Kolhapur Dated 01.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Ito, Ward-1, Ratnagiri (Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao) In Assessing Total Income Of Appellant At Rs, 50,34,254/- Instead Of Returned Income Of Rs. 4,05,200/-. 2. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Additionof Rs.33,79,054/- Made By The Learned Ao U/S 69C Of The Ita, 1961 For The Bogus Purchases From M/S. Adijin Enterprises & M/S. Hiten Enterprises; Without Appreciating That, No Any Enquiries Were Carried Out By The L-T Authorities In This Regard. 3. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur & The Learned Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That, The Said Bogus Purchases Of Rs. 33,79,054/- Were, Intact, Capitalized To Plant & Machinery & Depreciation Of Only Rs. 5,06,958/- (I.E. 15% Of Rs. 33,79,054/-) Was Claimed As A Deduction By Appellant During Ay 2009-10. The Learned

928 PAN: ANBPP2704H Gangaram TIN: 27880265244V Desai Total Rs.33,79,054 2.1 The AO claimed that these expenses have been debited by the assessee in Profit and Loss Account of the assessee. The AO asked the assessee to prove the genuineness of the impugned purchases. However, it is mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee only filed Ledger account

M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

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

depreciation on the completed unsold stock should be allowed as deduction against the said business income in terms of provisions of section 32 of the Act. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 6. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

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

depreciation on the completed unsold stock should be allowed as deduction against the said business income in terms of provisions of section 32 of the Act. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 6. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

Section 40(b) of the Act. The firm is not concerned with the rate at which the partner is paying interest on the funds borrowed and invested in the firm. paid to the partner. The appellant gets a relief of Rs.4,86,837/-. 19. Before us, on this issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that a similar issue came up for consideration

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND & SONS vs. JOINT COMMISSINER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1360/Pun/2014 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

Section 40(b) of the Act. The firm is not concerned with the rate at which the partner is paying interest on the funds borrowed and invested in the firm. paid to the partner. The appellant gets a relief of Rs.4,86,837/-. 19. Before us, on this issue, Ld. Counsel submitted that a similar issue came up for consideration

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

928/-. The said return of income was selected for scrutiny assessment. On noticing that the respondent / assessee has reported the international transactions in Form No.3CB, the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 8, Pune (hereinafter referred as the “Assessing Officer”) made a reference to the Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune, (hereinafter referred as the “Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO)”) u/s 92CA

INDUS BIOTECH LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Accordingly, this ground is allowed

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

928,010 105,000 95,000 1,500,000 6,958,681 1,014,103 112,768 10,12,000 11,725,562 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nimbus Communication Ltd. vide ITA No.4244/2010, order dated