M/S. KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD., (ERSTWHILE:M/S. BELLFLOWER PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. Pune (Erstwhile Bellflower Properties Pvt. Ltd. Merged With Kolte Patil Developers Ltd.,) Second Floor, City Point, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcb1007A Appellant Respondent िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), (Erstwhile Bellflower Properties Pvt. Pune Ltd. Merged With Kolte Patil Developers Ltd.,) Second Floor, City Point, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aadcb1007A Appellant Respondent

depreciation where payment of interest exceeds Rs.1.00 crore. In the pre-insertion era, there was no direct statutory provision for making any transfer pricing Kolte Patil Developers Ltd., adjustment on this score. Side by side, Chapter X-A of the Act containing GAAR has also been made applicable from the 1st day of April, 2018. Starting with a non-obstante

EMERSON CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application moved by assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2432/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

97,685/- instead of Rs.3,42,40,000/- as determined by the Appellant and thereby making an adjustment of Rs.44,57,685/-. The Appellant prays that the book value of the international transaction be accepted to be the arm's length price of the said transaction and the above TP adjustment be deleted. 3.1 On the facts

MERCEDES-BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD),PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

depreciation under section 32 of the Act should be allowed on capitalized Project Assistance Technical Fees. 7. First, we take up the appeal of assessee. The issue raised in the appeal filed by assessee is against transfer pricing adjustment made on account of international transactions entered into by the assessee. 8. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-9, PUNE vs. MERCEDES BENZ I PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAIMLER CHRYSLER I PVT. LTD), PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1083/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd.) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase – Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal. Khed, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 410501 …. Pan: Aabcm1789L Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle – 8, Pune

depreciation under section 32 of the Act should be allowed on capitalized Project Assistance Technical Fees. 7. First, we take up the appeal of assessee. The issue raised in the appeal filed by assessee is against transfer pricing adjustment made on account of international transactions entered into by the assessee. 8. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee

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]

97,620 over and above the relief under section 90 claimed by the Appellant in its Return of Income, the corresponding income has already been offered to tax in the year under consideration and for which the additional copies of corresponding withholding tax certificates as received from the deductor/overseas customers have been submitted by the Appellant. Ground 11: Initiation

ZF STEERING GEAR (INDIA) LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (1),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14

section (2) of sec. 14A of the Act could be invoked only if the ld. O having regard to the accounts of the assessee, was not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY 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 आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

97,701/- on the assets placed there at 9. a. not considering the ‘cost of Electrical work and Civil work – Rs.20,82,47,820/- required to erect Windmill as integrated cost of Windmill eligible for @80% depreciation. b. in not granting additional depreciation on Windmills generating “Power for captive consumption in spite of complying the provisions

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

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

97,701/- on the assets placed there at 9. a. not considering the ‘cost of Electrical work and Civil work – Rs.20,82,47,820/- required to erect Windmill as integrated cost of Windmill eligible for @80% depreciation. b. in not granting additional depreciation on Windmills generating “Power for captive consumption in spite of complying the provisions

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

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

97,701/- on the assets placed there at 9. a. not considering the ‘cost of Electrical work and Civil work – Rs.20,82,47,820/- required to erect Windmill as integrated cost of Windmill eligible for @80% depreciation. b. in not granting additional depreciation on Windmills generating “Power for captive consumption in spite of complying the provisions

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY 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 आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

97,701/- on the assets placed there at 9. a. not considering the ‘cost of Electrical work and Civil work – Rs.20,82,47,820/- required to erect Windmill as integrated cost of Windmill eligible for @80% depreciation. b. in not granting additional depreciation on Windmills generating “Power for captive consumption in spite of complying the provisions

COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

97,98,070/- being depreciation allowance on the same u/s 32(1) of the Income Tax Act at the applicable rates.” 3. All the other grounds are dismissed as argumentative in nature. 4. Briefly stated, relevant facts includes that the assessee is engaged in the business of the Manufacturing Industry Automobile and Auto Ancillary and filed return of income declaring

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

97,164 36(l)(vii) 2. 46. Section 36(l)(viia) of the Act provides for deduction of provision for bad debts, while Section 36(1 )(vii) deals with deduction for bad debts actually written off. In the facts of the assessee, it has actually written off bad debts in relation to credit card business taken over by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation for set off in the subsequent years. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred by the CIT(A) in para 5.4 of the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity in the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) and we agree with the same. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is justified

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, KOLHAPUR vs. PRIYADARSHINI POLYSACKS LTD,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1668 & 1669/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

97,853/- and the same was claimed as deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. However, the AO observed that the unabsorbed depreciation for earlier years of Rs.2,25,91,079/- should be set off against current year’s profits of the eligible units of 80IA and accordingly arrived at the eligible profits at Rs.57,17,348/- and restricted the deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, KOLHAPUR vs. PRIYADARSHINI POLYSACKS LTD,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1668 & 1669/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

97,853/- and the same was claimed as deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. However, the AO observed that the unabsorbed depreciation for earlier years of Rs.2,25,91,079/- should be set off against current year’s profits of the eligible units of 80IA and accordingly arrived at the eligible profits at Rs.57,17,348/- and restricted the deduction

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"

depreciation @ 15% amounting to Rs.24,44,656/- out of the WDV of Rs.1,62,97,704/-. The Assessing Officer thus made addition of Rs.8,14,855/- to the total income of the assessee being difference in the closing WDV, i.e. Rs.1,46,67,933 – Rs.1,38,53,048/-. 18.3 Before CIT(A) the assessee brought to his notice the provisions

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"

depreciation @ 15% amounting to Rs.24,44,656/- out of the WDV of Rs.1,62,97,704/-. The Assessing Officer thus made addition of Rs.8,14,855/- to the total income of the assessee being difference in the closing WDV, i.e. Rs.1,46,67,933 – Rs.1,38,53,048/-. 18.3 Before CIT(A) the assessee brought to his notice the provisions

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"

97) wherein he clarified that organizations like Chamber of Commerce or a similar organization rendering services to its members would not be affected by the amendment of the proviso to section 2(15) and they would continue to be regarded as charitable trusts. The circular No. 11/2008 dated 19.12.2008 has also supported the above view that such organizations would