SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

10 to Sec.43(1) and therefore, the same cannot be deemed as income in terms of Sec.2(24)(xviii), without actually examining the actual nature of the said receipt and that whether the same was granted/utilized for acquiring any asset so as to cover under the said Explanation. 3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

10 to Sec.43(1) and therefore, the same cannot be deemed as income in terms of Sec.2(24)(xviii), without actually examining the actual nature of the said receipt and that whether the same was granted/utilized for acquiring any asset so as to cover under the said Explanation. 3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances

ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

10 to Sec.43(1) and therefore, the same cannot be deemed as income in terms of Sec.2(24)(xviii), without actually examining the actual nature of the said receipt and that whether the same was granted/utilized for acquiring any asset so as to cover under the said Explanation. 3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

10(20) of the Act. Since, the services of the employees were utilized for earning the income of the earlier periods therefore, he held that the expenses of employee's premium for Superannuation Fund for earlier period cannot be an expenditure of the year in question, in view of the clear provisions of section

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

JAYA HIND INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

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

depreciation. If the expenditure is treated as revenue expenditure, it is either taken as an expenditure under Section 37(1) for computing income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or treated as "current repairs" entitled to deduction under Section 31(i). Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted.” 8. Even

ASHOK NARAYAN BHOSALE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1501/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Narayan Bhosale, The Deputy Commissioner Of Ashok Narayan Bhosle Bunglow At Vs Income Tax, Kaveri Nagar, Pratham Housing Cirlce-8, Pune. Society, Wakad, Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaspb 3588 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/03/2022

31 March, 2005, the Assessee being engaged in business of manufacture or production of an article or things. 6. We may also notice that the second proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 32 of the Act, would restrict Assessee's claim of depreciation to 50% in case, the assets are acquired by the Assessee during

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

depreciation allowance or any other allowance has been computed under the provisions of the Act. The very fact that reasons are recorded and notice u/s 148 11 was issued goes to show that the AO had applied his mind and was satisfied himself about the re-opening of the case. The IT Act envisages that the AO should only have

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

depreciation on civil works is allowed @ 10% and @15% on electric works instead of claimed by the assessee @15% and 20% respectively. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting of Rs.29094637/- on account of Disallowance of Freebies to Doctors

NAWAB PASHASAHEB JAMADAR,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपीऱ सं. /Ita No.731/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Global Panacea Hospital, Latur Gross Golden Jubilee, B-Block, Mahaeboob Nagar, Ambajogai Road, Latur – 413 512, Maharashtra Pan : Aaopj3902E Appellant Respondent

31,800/-. Since the benefit of depreciation was claimed by considering the construction of new building as part of the block, the AO refused to give any benefit u/s.54. The ld. 3 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO, against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard

AIR CONTRAL INDIA PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

10% in claimed depreciation in AY. 2011-12. The additional depreciation was claimed u/s. 32(1)(iia) of the Act for the reason that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing/production of any article or thing and this new Plant & Machinery was acquired before and installed before 31- 03-2010. The CIT(A) followed the order of the ITAT

M/S GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

31-03-2022 was passed. (b) As per sub section (1) of section 263, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) has the power/jurisdiction to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Income-tax Act and if considers that any order passed in the said proceedings is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial