← All Phrases

“Section 2(24)(xvii)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(24)(xvii)6 judgments

SAHYADRI FARMERS PRODUCER COMPANY LIMITED,NASHIK vs. PCIT, -1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

ITA 1378/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1378/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sahyadri Farmers Producer Vs. Pcit-1, Nashik. Company Limited, Survey No.1102/8, Behind Police Head Quarter, Adgaon, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aapcs1516D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By Ld. Pcit, Nashik-1 [‘Ld. Pcit’] For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Pcit-1, Nashik Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Ita, 1961 On The Analogy That The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Ita, 1961 Dated 19/09/2022 Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. Grounds Relating To Government Grants:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 263Section 43(1)

passed by him. Ld. DR further submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct any enquiry regarding non-applicability of provisions of section 2(24)(xvii) of the Act and also failed to conduct any enquiry with regard to External Commercial Borrowing (ECB). Ld. DR also submitted before the Bench

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR vs. ARMSTRONT KNITTING MILLS, TIRUPUR

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

ITA 1429/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1429/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Suraj Nahar, CA
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250

gain made by the appellant falls) under provisions of section 28(iiia), 28(iiib) and 28(iiic) was analyzed. Similarly the provisions of section 2(24)(xvii) were also discussed from the angle whether this amount received by the appellant is subsidy, grant or cash incentive etc., mentioned in this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 TIRUPUR, TIRUPPUR vs. ARMSTRONG KNITTING MILLS, TIRUPUR

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

ITA 1422/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1422/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.B. Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Suraj Nahar, CA
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250

gain made by the appellant falls under provisions of section 28(iiia), 28(iiib) and 28(iiic) was analyzed. Similarly the provisions of section 2(24)(xvii) were also discussed from the angle whether this amount received by the appellant is subsidy, grant or cash incentive etc., mentioned in this

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE vs. ADVIK HI-TECH PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

ITA 1203/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 43(1)

which is considered for determination of actual cost of the assets as per Explanation 10 to clause (1) of section 43. Therefore, the section 2(24)(xvii) is applicable for subsidy other than the subsidy for capital investment and the AO has rightly applied the Explanation 10 below to section

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM.OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

ITA 1157/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 43(1)

which is considered for determination of actual cost of the assets as per Explanation 10 to clause (1) of section 43. Therefore, the section 2(24)(xvii) is applicable for subsidy other than the subsidy for capital investment and the AO has rightly applied the Explanation 10 below to section

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,CHAKAN PUNE vs. DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, AKURDI, PUNE

ITA 1156/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Shah &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 43(1)

which is considered for determination of actual cost of the assets as per Explanation 10 to clause (1) of section 43. Therefore, the section 2(24)(xvii) is applicable for subsidy other than the subsidy for capital investment and the AO has rightly applied the Explanation 10 below to section