BALKRISHNA RATHI FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

127 & 136, Amralewadi Ambadvet Taluka Mulshi, Belawade Mulshi, Pune – 412108. Maharashtra. PAN: AAACB7443H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by Shri Ambarnath Khule-JCIT(Through Virtual Hearing) Date of hearing 26/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 19/01/2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1296/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Leelavati Vijaykumar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Kotecha, 2(1), Nashik. 4, Teachers Colony, Ring Road, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Alvpk4435H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case Vide Ita Nos.1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13, Order Dated 26.04.2018 Had Adjudicated The Issue Ex-Parte & Dismissed The Above Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, On Miscellaneous

127 was passed. Without prejudice to the above and alternatively under protest: 3. On facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in making routine additions / disallowances in assessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 144 in the absence of any incriminating material and without appreciating the fact that original assessment made u/s 143(1)(a) which

VANAZ ENGINEERS LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -7,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1959/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vanaz Engineers Limited, 85/1, Paud Road, Pune-411 038. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacv6873B बनाम / V/S. Addl. Cit, Range- 7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 5, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Vanaz Engineers Limited (‘The Appellant’), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Dated 12Th May, 2017 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 5 ['Cit(A)’], Pune (Received By The Appellant On 20Th June, 2017) Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) On The Following Grounds Which Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Has:

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: 6. erred in not giving a specific direction to the learned AO with respect to the disallowance of freight expenses amounting to Rs. 10,68,127

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE

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

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

disallowance of expenses incurred for unrestricted educational grant provided to IFMER, by holding that the said grants were utilized for the purpose of providing freebies to the healthcare professionals such as travel, stay, etc. which are prohibited as per The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct. Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (MCI Regulations) and not deductible under Explanation 1 to section

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE

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

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

disallowance of expenses incurred for unrestricted educational grant provided to IFMER, by holding that the said grants were utilized for the purpose of providing freebies to the healthcare professionals such as travel, stay, etc. which are prohibited as per The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct. Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (MCI Regulations) and not deductible under Explanation 1 to section

WOCKHARDT LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE

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

disallowance of expenses incurred for unrestricted\neducational grant provided to IFMER, by holding that the said grants were\nutilized for the purpose of providing freebies to the healthcare professionals\nsuch as travel, stay, etc. which are prohibited as per The Indian Medical\nCouncil (Professional Conduct. Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (MCI\nRegulations) and not deductible under Explanation 1 to section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

127, 218 Taxman 45 are not applicable to the case of the appellant. Section 43 (5) ―43 In sections 28 to 41 and in this section unless context otherwise requires- (1)……. (5) ―speculation transaction‖ means transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

127, 218 Taxman 45 are not applicable to the case of the appellant. Section 43 (5) ―43 In sections 28 to 41 and in this section unless context otherwise requires- (1)……. (5) ―speculation transaction‖ means transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

127, 218 Taxman 45 are not applicable to the case of the appellant. Section 43 (5) ―43 In sections 28 to 41 and in this section unless context otherwise requires- (1)……. (5) ―speculation transaction‖ means transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than

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

127/-, as disallowed in both the lower proceedings. 3 ITA.Nos.562 & 563/PUN./2024 4. We note in this factual backdrop that the learned lower appellate authority has upheld the CPC's action proceedings disallowing the assessee unabsorbed depreciation carried forward claim in A.Y. 2019-2020 as under : “The claim of the appellant that brought forward losses of the previous years

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

127/-, as disallowed in both the lower proceedings. 3 ITA.Nos.562 & 563/PUN./2024 4. We note in this factual backdrop that the learned lower appellate authority has upheld the CPC's action proceedings disallowing the assessee unabsorbed depreciation carried forward claim in A.Y. 2019-2020 as under : “The claim of the appellant that brought forward losses of the previous years

M/S. MAHAVIR CIVIL ENGINEERING & SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,JALGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL),

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

127 dated 02.12.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nashik from Jalgaon to Nashik. The said objection was overruled by the Assessing Officer placing reliance on the provisions of section 292BB of the Act. Against the return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.03.2014 accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the PCIT

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

disallowance of depreciation of intangible assets claimed @25% coming to Rs.91,00,069/-; which in turn, stand rejected under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Revenue could hardly dispute that such a depreciation claim could not be rejected under section 40(a)(i) as held in PCIT Vs. Tally solutions P. Ltd., [2021] 430 ITR 527 (Karnataka). This

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

disallowing the claim is that as per 24 IT(SS)A Nos.23 to 25/PUN/2024 assessing officer, all the above-mentioned units should be aggregated and considered as a single eligible business. The issue as to whether each windmill is required to be treated as 'separate undertaking' or all the windmills should be aggregated, has been examined

BHUJBAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE

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

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

disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections. The computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are not correct or complete, the Assessing Officer may reject those books and estimate the income to the best

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. BHUJBAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

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

disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are allowed generally under other sections. The computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are not correct or complete, the Assessing Officer may reject those books and estimate the income to the best

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

disallowance of deduction claimed under\nsections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID\nor section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond\nthe due date specified under sub-section (1) of\nsection 139\"\n6. Given that there is no specific requirement in section 10AA\nto file the return of income within the due date

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

disallowance of deduction claimed under\nsections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID\nor section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond\nthe due date specified under sub-section (1) of\nsection 139\"\n\n6. Given that there is no specific requirement in section 10AA\nto file the return of income within the due date