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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

116 may, - (a) amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this Act; [(b) amend any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143;]] [(c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A;] [d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB.]” 15 ITA No. 2286/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2005-06 A bare

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

116 of the Act shall exercise all\nthe powers and perform the functions as stipulated in the Act in respect\nof all the proceedings which may be commenced after the date of such\norder in respect of any year and such power includes passing the order\nregistering a trust and also cancelling the registration.\n7.1.8 Further, the CBDT vide letter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

disallowed the same. 34 On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09 onwards allowed said expenditure is revenue expenditure u/s 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before

DASHRATH V.WAGASKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.270/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Asha Bhausahebthube, The Income Tax Officer, (Legal Heir Of Late Vs Ward-1(4), Nashik. Mr.Dashrathv.Wagaskar), Gat No.63, Wagaskar House, Anandvalli, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422 013. Pan: Aampw 5276 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore B Phadke– Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 14/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2022

disallowed the assessee’s claim of Section 54F of the Act in the A.Y. 2013-14. Hence, the Ground No.4 of the assessee is dismissed. 7.1 Alternatively, the assessee raised a plea that forced appropriation of Rs.3 Crores towards loan by State Bank of India resulted into creation of a Capital Asset. The assessee’s claim is farfetched. The loan

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]

disallowance of INR 4,50,70,798 under u/s 14A of the Act r.w rule 8D(2)(ii) be deleted. Ground 10: Additional relief under section 90 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the AU based on the directions of Ld. DRP erred in disregarding Appellant’s claim for additional relief under section

SATISH SUDHAKAR MANDAOKAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

116/-, being 20% of expenses i.e. Site expenses Rs.3002733/-, Labour charges Rs 29,46,547/- and Travelling & conveyance Expenses Rs. 706299/-, without considering the facts that A.O. made this disallowance on ad-hoc basis without any specific finding in his order. 2. That, as per the grounds of appeal, the assessee is aggrieved with the sustaining of the addition

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three 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.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

116/- and disallowance of Helicopter expenses of Rs.19,672/-. The factual matrix of the additions is as under :- During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the appellant firm sold the Helicopter for consideration of Rs.1,20,78,500/- and also purchased new Helicopter for Rs.76,00,291/-. While computing the amount of admissible depreciation under

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three 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.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

116/- and disallowance of Helicopter expenses of Rs.19,672/-. The factual matrix of the additions is as under :- During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the appellant firm sold the Helicopter for consideration of Rs.1,20,78,500/- and also purchased new Helicopter for Rs.76,00,291/-. While computing the amount of admissible depreciation under

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three 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.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

116/- and disallowance of Helicopter expenses of Rs.19,672/-. The factual matrix of the additions is as under :- During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the appellant firm sold the Helicopter for consideration of Rs.1,20,78,500/- and also purchased new Helicopter for Rs.76,00,291/-. While computing the amount of admissible depreciation under

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

section 143(3) of the Act disallowing the above expenditure of Rs.26.55,05,907/- as bogus which included provision for such expenditure of Rs.2,31,13,761/-. 2. 6. In the meantime, there were various development which brought to light the involvement of one Mr. Ajit Satam. Before the CIT(A), the assessee made submissions as regards to the true

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. ADVIK HI-TECH PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1578/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Gat No.357/99, Chakan Talegaon Road, Vill- Kharabwadi, Tal. Khed, Chakan, Pune-410 501 Pan : Aacca3106E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune.

116 TTJ (Ahmedabad) 705, disallowed the claim of the assessee. While doing so, the Assessing Officer also held that initial assessment year has to be considered as the year in which power generation commences and not the year in which it chooses to make claim for deduction for the first time. The Assessing Officer held that in the current section

M/S ADVIK HI-TECH PVT LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1578/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Gat No.357/99, Chakan Talegaon Road, Vill- Kharabwadi, Tal. Khed, Chakan, Pune-410 501 Pan : Aacca3106E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune.

116 TTJ (Ahmedabad) 705, disallowed the claim of the assessee. While doing so, the Assessing Officer also held that initial assessment year has to be considered as the year in which power generation commences and not the year in which it chooses to make claim for deduction for the first time. The Assessing Officer held that in the current section

BRIG. (RETD.) JITENDRA KUMAR NARANG,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD 11(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Rs.5,30,000/- remained to be added to the total income of the assessee. On plain reading of the assessment order dated 23/03/2015 it becomes clear that the A.O. has ruled out an 4 amount of Rs.5,30,000/-, but, the same was not added while computing total income. Consequently, an order

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance in terms of section 80IB(10)(e) and 80IB(10)(f) of the Act. On a pointed query by the Bench as to whether the application dated 06.07.2012 for project R-5, application dated 26.06.2012 for project R-22 and application dated 04.07.2012 for R-4 were filed before the Assessing Officer or not, the Ld. Counsel

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance in terms of section 80IB(10)(e) and 80IB(10)(f) of the Act. On a pointed query by the Bench as to whether the application dated 06.07.2012 for project R-5, application dated 26.06.2012 for project R-22 and application dated 04.07.2012 for R-4 were filed before the Assessing Officer or not, the Ld. Counsel

DILIP HARI AMDEKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1709/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The solitary issue raised by the assessee in appeal is against addition of Rs.1,69,116/- u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 sustained by CIT(A). 2 ITA No. 1709/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009-10 3. Shri S.H. Amdekar appearing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. ADVIK HI-TECH PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

116 TTJ (Ahmedabad) 705, disallowed the claim of the assessee. While doing so, the Assessing Officer also held that initial assessment year has to be considered as the year in which power generation commences and not the year in which it chooses to make claim for deduction for the first time. The Assessing Officer held that in the current section

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

section 23(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer considered the deemed rent of Rs.3,22,000/- relying on the decision in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134. 52. During the first appellate proceedings, as per the contents given in para 6.4 at page 19 of the CIT(A)’s order, the CIT(A) relied

MARUTI N. NAVALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

section 23(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer considered the deemed rent of Rs.3,22,000/- relying on the decision in the case of Radha Devi Dalmia vs. CIT, 125 ITR 134. 52. During the first appellate proceedings, as per the contents given in para 6.4 at page 19 of the CIT(A)’s order, the CIT(A) relied