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

sections 11 and 12 may not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the auditor's report and the Income-tax Officer should record reasons for accepting a belated audit report. Therefore one has to examine whether the delay in furnishing the audit report was due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee. He observed that

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

sections 11 and 12 may not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the auditor's report and the Income-tax Officer should record reasons for accepting a belated audit report. Therefore one has to examine whether the delay in furnishing the audit report was due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee. He observed that

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

sections 11 and 12 may not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the auditor's report and the Income-tax Officer should record reasons for accepting a belated audit report. Therefore one has to examine whether the delay in furnishing the audit report was due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee. He observed that

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

sections 11 and 12 may not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the auditor's report and the Income-tax Officer should record reasons for accepting a belated audit report. Therefore one has to examine whether the delay in furnishing the audit report was due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee. He observed that

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

sections 11 and 12 may not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the auditor's report and the Income-tax Officer should record reasons for accepting a belated audit report. Therefore one has to examine whether the delay in furnishing the audit report was due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee. He observed that

GURU KRIPA SEVA ASHYRAM,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

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

12 of the Act. 3. Representations have been received by the Board/field authorities stating that Form no.10B could not be filed along with the return of income for AY 2016- 17 and AY 2017-18. It has been requested that the delay in filing of Form no.10B may be condoned. Previously, vide instruction in F. No. 267/482/77-IT(part) dated

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

section 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12

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

section 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12

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

section 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12

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

section 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12

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

section 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation etc." No question of law, therefore, arises in this respect. 12

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

depreciation as per Income Tax. (Paper Book page No. 5, 9\nand 79 para 4.2) Accordingly clause (xviii) of section 2 (24) does not\napply. Kindly refer to synopsis of the submissions and arguments\n(Annexure A).\n\n(b) It was argued by the Ld. DR that since the government subsidy\nreceived in this case, is not relatable

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

depreciation\nshould not exceed the threshold provided in the said proviso. We find\nthat the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Padmini Products (P.) Ltd. v.\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12(2), Bengaluru [2020]\n121 taxmann.com 237/277 Taxman 22 (Karnataka) held that fifth\nproviso (now sixth proviso) to Section

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Depreciation loss of Rs. 12,69,0741-. Further, under the circumstances that the return of income was not filed within the stipulated time limit as detailed in section

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

depreciation as per Income Tax. (Paper Book page No. 5, 9\nand 79 para 4.2) Accordingly clause (xviii) of section 2 (24) does not\napply. Kindly refer to synopsis of the submissions and arguments\n(Annexure A).\n(b) It was argued by the Ld. DR that since the government subsidy\nreceived in this case, is not relatable

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

depreciation as per Income Tax. (Paper Book page No. 5, 9\nand 79 para 4.2) Accordingly clause (xviii) of section 2 (24) does not\napply. Kindly refer to synopsis of the submissions and arguments\n(Annexure A).\n(b) It was argued by the Ld. DR that since the government subsidy\nreceived in this case, is not relatable

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

depreciation" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (b) of sub-section (7) of section 72A.” 6. Now before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that in compliance to section 115BAB(7) assessee has first time opted for this concessional rate of tax u/s.115BAB of the Act in the return filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE ,, PUNE vs. SHIVNAGAR VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Section 11,12, 12A, 12AA & 13 and these provisions are independent code in itself in Chapter III of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and claim of depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE ,, PUNE vs. THE BISHOPS EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Section 11,12, 12A, 12AA & 13 and these provisions are independent code in itself in Chapter III of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and claim of depreciation