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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 PUNE, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1255/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner L B Kunjir, Of Income Tax, V S.No.52/1 Swanand Circle-7, Pune. S Building, Shree Ram Hsg Society, Kharadi, Chandanagar, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aabfl9816E Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri R.Y.Balawade – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 12/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order

depreciation of eligible business even when the same had been set off against income from non-eligible business in earlier years?” Brief facts of the case : 2. The assessee is a partnership firm. It filed return of income electronically for A.Y.2020-21 on 31.12.2020 declaring the total income of Rs.15,07,05,950/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny

RAJA BASHUMIYA MANIYAR,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

97,170/-However during the verification of records it\nwas seen that assessee has claimed a deduction of Rs 19,71,626/-u/s\n54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the assessee should have\npurchased the residential property within 2 years from the date of\ntransferring the capital asset. As the assessee had transferred the\ndevelopments rights

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

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45.\nFurther, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

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

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45. Further, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

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

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45.\nFurther, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee 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

depreciation in the\nfight of provisions of section 43(1) [explanation 10]. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) /\nNFAC deleted the addition and the Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal.\nTherefore, we are not concerned with the same.\n45.\nFurther, on perusal of return of income the Assessing Officer noted that the\nassessee had claimed deduction u/s.35

M/S KUTE SONS DAIRYS LTD.,SATARA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -3,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.410/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kute Sons Dairys Ltd., Vs. Pcit-3, Pune. S.No.406/407, At Nimbhore, Post Surwadi, Taluka Phaltan, Satara- 415523. Pan : Aabck0391C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri N. K. Rander Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Pune (‘The Pcit’) Dated 30.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Initiating Proceedings U/S.263 & Passing The Order Without Proper Jurisdiction. Appellant Prays To Declare Proceedings & Order Bad In Law.

depreciation on New Plant & Machinery purchased which is accepted by Assessing Officer after full application of mind. Therefore, appellant prays to cancel the Pr. CIT’s Order on the issue. 4. Pr. Commissioner has erred in setting aside case for applicability of Section 41(1). Appellant prays to cancel the Pr. CIT’s Order on the issue. 5. Appellant prays

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

97 (Guj), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that non obstante clause of section 153A(1) relating to normal assessment procedure is to be understood as merely dispensing with procedural aspect; search assessment can be reopened under section 147. 27. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

DANFOSS POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.592 & 593/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Danfoss Power Solutions India Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Pvt. Ltd., Gate No.94-100, High Cliff Industrial Estate, Wagholi Rahu Road, Village- Kesnand, Pune- 412207. Pan : Aafcs2954P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 22.11.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 01.12.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.02.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.592/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

97,23,090/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 25.11.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.14,15,41,420/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer

DANFOSS POWER SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.592 & 593/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Danfoss Power Solutions India Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Pvt. Ltd., Gate No.94-100, High Cliff Industrial Estate, Wagholi Rahu Road, Village- Kesnand, Pune- 412207. Pan : Aafcs2954P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 22.11.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 01.12.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.02.2019 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.592/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

97,23,090/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 25.11.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.14,15,41,420/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. It is not a panacea for all the tax related issues of amalgamation, so as to have application insofar as the other tax entitlements, privileges or benefits in the hands of the amalgamating company, are concerned. 14. Section 74 deals

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. It is not a panacea for all the tax related issues of amalgamation, so as to have application insofar as the other tax entitlements, privileges or benefits in the hands of the amalgamating company, are concerned. 14. Section 74 deals

DHARIWAL INDUSTRIAL LTD.,,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

97,737/- made by the AO by not allowing deduction under section 80-IA of the act ignoring the judicial, logical and justifiable submission made by the appellant. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 93,88,165/- made

TANAJI PARILAL GAWADE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

depreciation claimed on JCB at Rs.3,12,419/- and printing & stationary expenses of Rs.1,97,968/- and entertainment expenses of Rs.3,75,124/- in absence of proper details. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,97,65,230/- as against the returned income of Rs.12,82,228/-. 7. The assessee filed an appeal before

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

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.

97,340 Services other sources (vi) Student 2,50,271 (vi) Interest from 77,59,214 welfare Bank (vii) 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