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

d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the CIT (A) has held that where the assessee has accounted for the government subsidy from the cost of the asset for determination of the actual cost of asset for claiming depreciation, subsidy

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD., 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

d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the CIT (A) has held that where the assessee has accounted for the government subsidy from the cost of the asset for determination of the actual cost of asset for claiming depreciation, subsidy

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

d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the CIT (A) has held that where the assessee has accounted for the government subsidy from the cost of the asset for determination of the actual cost of asset for claiming depreciation, subsidy

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

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

D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: The above appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are cross appeals and are directed against the separate orders dated 21.12.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 respectively. Since ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD6(1), PUNE

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

d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in\nassessee's own case for A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the\nCIT (A) has held that where the assessee has accounted for the\ngovernment subsidy from the cost of the asset for determination of\nthe actual cost of asset for claiming depreciation, subsidy

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

d) Disallowance on Foreign Travelling Expenses – Others of Rs.2,13,379/-. (e) Disallowance of depreciation on certain items of stainless steel tables, stools, trollies used in the laboratory as Plant & Machinery of Rs.1,38,153/-. (f) Disallowance of Product Development Expenditure u/s 35(1)/37 of Rs.14,37,06,712/-. (g) Disallowance of donation u/s 37(1) of Rs.5

SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(1), PUNE

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

d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in\nassessee's own case for A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the\nCIT (A) has held that where the assessee has accounted for the\ngovernment subsidy from the cost of the asset for determination of\nthe actual cost of asset for claiming depreciation, subsidy

ACIT, PUNE vs. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

d) While deleting the adjustment made u/s 143 (1) (a) of the Act, in\nassessee's own case for A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the\nCIT (A) has held that where the assessee has accounted for the\ngovernment subsidy from the cost of the asset for determination of\nthe actual cost of asset for claiming depreciation, subsidy

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

depreciation from earlier years against the income so assessed. 3. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee trust is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 vide No.E1150, Pune dated 13-10-1987. The assessee is registered u/s.12A of the Act vide registration No.4597 dated 21-06-1989. The assessee trust was formed with various aims

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

11 September, 2019, which were objected by the petitioner. On such objection, an order was passed by the Assessing officer rejecting the objections as raised by the petitioners, so as to proceed to reassess the income of the petitioner under Section 147 of the Act. 13. As clearly seen from the record, to which, we have made a reference

ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

D CHORDIYA\n1,75,500\n45,000\n14.\nReferring to the papers enclosed with the chart submitted by the ACIT,\nCentral Circle 1(1), Pune, the details of which are placed at pages 8 to 13 of the\npaper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the\nsame and submitted that the first

DCIT,CIRCLE-8 , PUNE vs. MAHALE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

D viz. cost of tangible assets erred in not allowing deduction at one hundred percent under the provisions of Section 35(1) (iv) or depreciation thereon under Section 32 of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or withdraw the grounds of Appeal. 25. After hearing both the sides, we find the above grounds

MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

D viz. cost of tangible assets erred in not allowing deduction at one hundred percent under the provisions of Section 35(1) (iv) or depreciation thereon under Section 32 of the Act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or withdraw the grounds of Appeal. 25. After hearing both the sides, we find the above grounds