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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.425/Pun/2015 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2002-03 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012 Pan: Aaaca4047D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 35D(2)(c)(iii) of the Act. There is substantial difference between registration of a company and action taken for increase in authorized share capital. In the case of the assessee because of amalgamation proceedings, there was need to increase in authorized share capital and therefore, such expenses cannot be segregated from the main amalgamation proceedings and therefore, these

DY. CIT CIRCLE-8,, PUNE vs. M/S. ATLAS COPCO (I) 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.1302/Pun/2010 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Sveanagar, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012. Pan: Aaaca4074D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 35D(2)(c)(iii) of the Act. There is substantial difference between registration of a company and action taken for increase in authorized share capital. In the case of the assessee because of amalgamation proceedings, there was need to increase in authorized share capital and therefore, such expenses cannot be segregated from the main amalgamation proceedings and therefore, these

ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIR-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.1302/Pun/2010 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. Sveanagar, Mumbai-Pune Road, Dapodi, Pune-411 012. Pan: Aaaca4074D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 35D(2)(c)(iii) of the Act. There is substantial difference between registration of a company and action taken for increase in authorized share capital. In the case of the assessee because of amalgamation proceedings, there was need to increase in authorized share capital and therefore, such expenses cannot be segregated from the main amalgamation proceedings and therefore, these

M/S. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. ITO, WD.-3(3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

ACIT, CIR.-1(2),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. MANTRI HOUSING & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

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

35D of the income Tax Act, 1961 was denied to the assessee, as the assessee could not prove the case of expansion of business. 5. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the A.O. be restored.” 6. The case file reveals that these are old matters and they are continuously getting adjourned since 2013. The case

L & T JOHN DEERE PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS JOHN DEERE EQUIPMENT P LTD) (NOW MERGED WITH JOHN DEERE (I) P LTD),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.975/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 वष"

35D was a legal claim and simply because the claim was not accepted did not mean that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2.1 Assessee also raised the following additional ground in the appeal: “1. The assessee submits that

SOLAPUR SUGAR LIMITED,,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 36 clause (1) sub-clause (iii) also makes the interest on capital asset to be disallowed till it commences production. The assessee could not demonstrate any nexus in improvement of land to pre- operative expenses. Hence, it cannot be capitalised. Even reliance placed by the assessee in the case of Cosmic Kitchen Pvt. Ltd. I.T.A. No. 5549/D/2010 is also